Federal Judiciary

All (patent lawyers) need is ... clarity

By Michael Smith

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Promos Technologies, 2007 WL 4290004(E.D.Tex. Dec 05, 2007) (NO. 4:06CV491)
Judge: Don Bush
Holding: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery GRANTED in part.
More fun and games with patent lawyers in Judge Bush's court.  In this order resolving some disputes arising in a motion to compel in a patent case (oddly, those come up from time to time) Judge Bush wrote:

The Court notes that Freescale's Motion is no model of clarity in the relief it seeks. Motions that are overly broad and general should receive the like consideration. Freescale's Motion is so general that the Court is left to guess on what matters are in dispute between the parties. Reading between the lines and in an effort to end the incessant squabbling, the Court enters the following order.
                                                        ***
For clarity, in that all patent lawyers need clarity, for 2000, documents will be produced for December 2000 and January to February 2001.2002 production is for March, April and May and so forth until the end of the relevant cutoff period.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on December 13, 2007 (boomark / email).