No, This is A Different Case Dismissed For Failure to Respond, But I Can See Why You Thought That

Yesterday I posted on a WDTX order dismissing a patent case brought by the Ramey firm on September 21 with prejudice for failure to respond as ordered by the court after an initial dismissal.  This is a completely different order – it is a WDTX order dismissing a patent case on brought by the Ramey firm on September 22 with prejudice for failure to respond as ordered by the court after an initial dismissal. 

“The standard for excusable neglect is an equitable one. And the equities do not lie with Plaintiff.”

Judge Pitman declined to set aside his dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent infringement case with prejudice following the plaintiff’s failure to amend in response to a dismissal for failure to adequately plead claims of direct infringement.  But this description of this order is like calling County Line barbecue “something to eat”. So let’s dig in.

Motion To Transfer Denied

Judge Albright denied defendant Google’s motion to transfer.  He initially found “many discrepancies and vague assertions that appear to be unreliable” in Google’s venue declaration, after which he held an in-person hearing to have the declarants testify.  The court concluded that “based on that in person assessment of credibility, the court found the witnesses to be unreliable” for reasons specified in the opinion.