The court denied the motion asserting lack of standing, finding that the allegations could be cured by filing an amended complaint. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the claim of pre-suit willfulness, finding it plausibly alleged at this stage of the litigation.
Judge Pitman granted the motion, but only as to the plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim.
At issue were the plaintiff’s claims for post-suit contributory and willful infringement. Judge Albright concluded that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded both.
The parties filed four motions for summary judgment in this case. One was granted – can you guess what the subject was?
This order arising from a recent pretrial conference provides an example of the type of rulings that parties receive on the eve of trial from Judge Gilstrap.
This motion to dismiss raised issues regarding claim splitting and improper venue which were novel, and issues regarding indirect and willful infringement which were not.
This motion was limited to the plaintiff’s claims of willful and induced infringement. And pre-suit indirect. And post-suit contributory. But that’s it. Really.
It’s partially granted. And not just the part you think.
One out of three isn’t bad.
Rulings on three topics in this case on the eve of trial – one with dueling motions.