Federal Judiciary

Judge Ward grants JMOL for defendants at close of patent plaintiff's case

By Michael C. Smith

Trial started in Paradox v. ADT et al in Judge T. John Ward's court in Marshall last Monday.  Three days later, when the plaintiff rested Judge Ward granted the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law.  (Three he granted in full and as to the fourth only in part, but the plaintiff stipulated to noninfringement on the remaining claims).  Judge Ward's pretrial rulings may have set the stage for the JMOLs, since he had ruled shortly before trial that the plaintiff's technical expert could not testify as to infringement by the three defendants who later obtained complete JMOL because the expert's report didn't sufficiently set forth the plaintiff's claims of infringement with regard to those defendants.
The ruling might also have been foreshadowed by another of Judge Ward's rulings in the case. Back on January 23, he issued an order denying the plaintiff's third motion to compel against two of the defendants, as well as its motion for leave to amend its PICs to add a claim of infringement under 271(f)(2), finding a lack of diligence to be the deciding factor.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on April 13, 2009 (boomark / email).