As trial approached in this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, 511 Innovations, Inc., filed a motion to exclude a witness at trial, Tim Benner from testifying at trial. The motion asserted that the defendant, Samsung, “did not make any written disclosure of Dr. Tim Benner as a potential witness, or…
Plaintiff Genes Industry, Inc. (“Genes”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant Custom Blinds and Components, Inc. (“Custom”). The patent discloses a winding wheel for use on window coverings. Custom filed a motion to continue its expert report deadlines from November 28, 2016 to February 10, 2017, and to continue…
In a previous order, the district court granted a motion to stay pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) but deferred ruling on the Motion to Stay with respect to EMC Corporation “until EMC Corporation has filed a Notice with the Court indicating whether it is bound by the statutory estoppel provisions…
In this patent infringement action, Plaid sought to exclude the entirety of the plaintiff’s damage expert’s, Robinson’s, reasonable royalty analysis as based on an apportionment “plucked out of thin air.” Yodlee opposed the motion and asserted that its apportionment methodology was justified by the facts of the case. The district…
In this patent infringement action, Teva inadvertently produced documents to Sunovion. Teva subsequently attempted to claw back the documents under the parties’ protective order. Sunovion moved to compel the inadvertently produced documents. In analyzing the motion to compel, the district court noted that it had “reviewed the parties’ submissions, the…
In keeping with the standing order issued by Judge Gilstrap for jury trials that strongly discouraged jury research in the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Love recently issued a similar order for patent case pending in the Eastern District of Texas. In the order, Judge Love notified the parties…
Plaintiff Krausz Industries Ltd. (“Krausz”) filed a motion for an order compelling Defendants Smith-Blair, Inc. and Sensus USA, Inc. (collectively “Smith-Blair”) to allow discovery into various attorney-client communications and work product related to an advice of counsel defense. Although the parties agreed that raising an advice of counsel defense can…
The plaintiff filed an ex parte application to be relieved of admissions that were deemed admitted for failure to respond. In analyzing the ex parte application, the district court first concluded that the plaintiff had not justified the filing of an ex parte application rather than a noticed motion. “Plaintiff…
After filing an ex parte reexamination with the Patent Office, the defendant filed a motion to stay the action pending the ex parte reexamination. In analyzing the request to stay the action, the district court noted that “[t]he decision of whether to stay this case during the potential ex parte…
In this patent infringement action, IBM filed a motion to compel production of certain documents that were withheld as privileged. IBM contend that time was of the essence when it filed its motion. The district court was not persuaded by the urgency of the request or that time “was of…