This case sets out the standards for specific personal jurisdiction and venue in a non-patent IP case.
I posted recently about a motion to stay pre-institution. This order shows what can happen after institution.
Judge Gilstrap recently addressed this issue.
This order builds on a construction of the same patent in a prior case.
The question was whether the defendant had to produce a corporate rep on certain topics. These issues come up frequently, so the opinion is helpful.
A common question lately is what is and isn’t enough to get an in-person hearing moved to video. We have another data point that indicates the end of video hearings in most cases may be drawing near.
Marshall now has two patent jury trials under its belt post-COVID. Did I mention we’re getting a new Starbucks?
What happens when a Section 101 issue meets the Twiqbal standard?
No, seriously there are competing Christmas caroling companies. With copyrights and everything.
No, not that kind of stay. The kind that’s not granted till the PTAB makes an institution decision.