Motion for Leave to Amend Contentions

Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not sufficiently diligent with respect to the proposed amended infringement contentions adding additional accused products, and that addition at this stage would be highly prejudicial to defendants.  But in a footnote it stated that “[r]ecognizing the potential importance of the amendment, the Court does not foreclose the ability of Finesse to pursue the additional products in a separate proceeding.”

Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Under Section 101 Granted

One of my favorite things about modelbuilding is the opportunity it gives me to thoroughly research a topic.  Last night I was studying the above recently discovered photo of the U.S. carrier U.S.S. Lexington (CV-2) shortly before the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942 which helps nail down once and for all the burning question of whether she had removed the second boat boom aft on the port side for a May 1942 model I’m building (it’ll be my fourth of the same ship at the same battle because I gotta be me).  Similarly, with the Waco patent docket thrown to the winds, almost every substantive order now is from a different judge – here the WDTX’ new chief judge Alia Moses, granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of patentable subject matter, which provides significant insights far beyond the bare language of the order.

Motion to Dismiss/Transfer Denied

Judge Payne recommended denial of defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, finding that venue was proper based on the facts alleged for this stage of the lawsuit, noting that the defendant’s objections relied on disputed facts regarding the use of the accused products in the EDTX.  The court also rejected the claim that a forum selection clause require the case to be brought in Washington, and that venue was “clearly more convenient” there. 

Conflicts of Interest Waived … Mostly

Photo by Carol M. Highsmith

Ruling on the defendant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying its motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, Judge Schroeder noted that while the facts indicate an obvious conflict of interest, the defendant specifically waived most of the conflicts.

Attorneys Fees for Prevailing Defendant in Copyright Case

The prevailing defendant in this copyright case sought an award of fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.  Judge Gilstrap’s opinion sorted through the claims and the parties’ alleged conduct in the case before finally determining the appropriateness of an award of fees, thus giving parties some guidance on when an award of fees in a copyright case is appropriate.

Motions to Dismiss Granted w/Leave to Replead; Motion to Transfer Denied

In this pair of opinions addressing motions by two defendants, Judge Gilstrap granted the motions to dismiss, but with leave to replead, denied a motion seeking to find the defendant’s US subsidiary a necessary party, and denied the motion to transfer.