Judge Lake found that personal jurisdiction was lacking in Texas, and transferred the case to the Central District of California, Western Division.
Judge Ellison denied the motion to remand this contract case, finding that while it did not arise under federal patent law, compliance with the contract necessarily requires resolution of the question of whether the pipe infringed a patent.
The court found that the defendants acted in bad faith in not going through with a settlement, and awarded over $10,000 in fees and costs.
In my recent thesis I pointed out the importance of knowing what the court-ordered limits on activity in your case are. This order by SDTX Judge Sim lake brings that into sharp focus. The court noted that the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss and suggested that they think hard about that – because under his procedures it would mean they could not later file a motion for summary judgment.
Judge Hanen granted the motion, dismissing plaintiff ProudLion’s claims as insufficiently pleaded. He did not reach the Section 101 argument, but noted that another SDTX judge had).
Judge Hanen granted the motion to reconsider (coincidentally by plaintiff Backoff) and revised his order. Agreeing that he had erroneously compared the accused device with the figures in the patent, not the claims, he concluded that with that comparison excluded there were fact issues as to literal infringement as well as infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
This sentence was followed by a lengthy order by Judge Rosenthal excluding an expert and granting partial summary judgment in this trademark case, but, hey, I had you at “tequila” didn’t I?
In fairness, it was with leave to replead, directing the plaintiff what to include, if it can. But there is no analysis explaining why the court concluded that the claims of the patent “as currently pleaded” didn’t meet either of the Alice steps – only a statement that what the plaintiff should include is express factual allegations “that address whether the claims recite elements that are well-understood, routine, or conventional.”
Judge Lake granted the motion for summary judgment as to the trademark claims finding that they were defeated by consent. He declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.
The court granted the motion in this trademark case, finding that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the moving defendant.