PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
Filing
411
ORDER - denying as untimely #395 Request to file a motion for summary judgment of validity re anticipation. Parties are reminded that expert testimony at trial will be limited to the four corners of their expert report. In that vein, dfts proffer regarding anticipation and any corresponding jury instruction may become an issue at a later time. Signed by Judge Randall R. Rader on 2/17/2010. (ch, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants.
Case No. 2:07-cv-480 (RRR) Jury Trial Demanded
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Plaintiff's request to file a motion for summary judgment of validity re anticipation (Dkt. 395) is DENIED as untimely. Both parties are reminded, however, that any expert testimony at trial will be limited to the four corners of their expert report. In that vein, defendants' proffer regarding anticipation and any corresponding jury instruction may become an issue at a later time. It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 17th day of February, 2010.
RANDALL R. RADER UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE (sitting by designation)
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
