Judge Godbey granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, noting that the asserted patents had expired, and that the plaintiff had twice failed to plead compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), thereby precluding recovery of any pre-suit damages.
I posted yesterday on a judge’s order denying an unopposed motion for leave to seal a filing, noting the problems commonly encountered with such filings. A reader forwarded me the court’s standing order setting forth the summary judgment-like briefing requirements parties must comply with in order to file any sentence of a document under seal, and I thought it was worth some analysis, both of the order itself and of how to comply with its efficiently.
Judge Kinkeade denied the defendants’ unopposed motion, noting that “[w]hile the Court agrees that some of this information might deserve sealing, nothing in Kinaxis’ perfunctory briefing demonstrates that disclosure of the information threatens harm to Kinaxis that outweighs the public’s right to inspect the records of this Court” and that the problems are “all too common” in briefing of motions to seal judicial records.
Judge Pittman’s claim construction opinion takes issue with the basis for the defendants’ claim of indefiniteness, noting that “Defendants’ entire indefiniteness argument for nine different claim terms is a single sentence long” and didn’t even use the right legal standard.
Last week the Dallas Cowboys were sued over their stadium app in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. Before the day was out, U.S. District Judge Judge Mark Pittman had issued a show cause order why the case shouldn’t be transferred to the Dallas Division, and Chief U.S. District Judge Alia Moses issued an order finding the patent unenforceable as claiming unpatentable subject matter in a different case filed in Waco. That’s pretty much the judicial equivalent of starting out 70-10 in your first two games. The funny part was what happened next. The plaintiff’s lawyer had to tactfully explain to the court that, um, the “regular and established place of business” for this patent case is the Cowboys’ stadium, which “is” located in the Fort Worth Division, not the Dallas Division. Of course one wonders why the case wasn’t filed where the Cowboys are headquartered, which is, of course not in the Dallas Division either, but in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division at the Star in Frisco.
Judge Starr granted the motion and administratively closed the case.
Judge Lynn is out of patience. The plaintiff has been moving to proceed without local counsel (NDTX requires local counsel) since February, and representing that there’s a settlement agreement. Plaintiff’s latest motion was denied – it has ten days to retain local, and the defendant has a week after that to respond to the amended complaint.
In an order addressing a complex situation post partial reversal on appeal, Judge Lynn denied the motion to amend the judgment consistent with her prior opinion.
If I told you this is about default judgments, would you really be as interested? Well, you should, because this is a case dealing with copyright damages that you might find a use for.
The court found that a website owned by the defendant contained multiple violations of the court’s active order in this trademark case. It rejected the defendant’s assertion that the website was a “test” website left up accidentally excused its presence. The sanction was that the defendant would bear the full cost of an upcoming mediation, as well as reasonable attorneys fees associated with the filing of the motion and the discovery of the violation.