Judge Gilstrap accepted Magistrate Judge Payne’s report and recommendation and held certain claims of the patents ineligible under § 101. (Yes, the county commissioners think they’ve seceded again).
Judge Gilstrap rejected the defendant’s request for fees following a dispositive claim construction ruling.
Judge Schroeder overruled the objections to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s fee award.
Today’s Marshall patent scheduling conferences had a couple of surprises for regular attendees.
Judge Payne granted the motion, and ordered that the individuals be screened off from certain communications with the plaintiffs.
Recently I’ve been tweaking something from 1992. So has the Court.
The subject of the motion was patentable subject matter under section 101.
Plaintiff had asked to add products – the court found it hadn’t show diligence and the amendments would be highly prejudicial.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion for partial stay (one claim) pending IPR review.
Judge Gilstrap declined to find at this stage that a prior Markman order precluded the claims in the current case.