Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.

Free
Message: l2007s, speaking of Toshiba's business practices:

l2007s, speaking of Toshiba's business practices:

posted on Dec 15, 2007 05:06AM

I guess they couldn't pull the wool over Judge Ward's eyes and get away with it. They paid for their actions with sanctions. I wonder if they tried to pull the same ruse in our case against them.

Courts Sanctions Defendant for Discovery Misconduct

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Toshiba America, Inc., 2007 WL 2021776(E.D.Tex. Jul 11, 2007) (NO. 2:05-CV-479)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Sanctions order
These sanctions have been out there since the hearing on June 14, and Judge Ward issued the order last week memorializing them. In short, Judge Everingham found, and Judge Ward agreed, that the defendants had withheld source code as "unavailable" and indicated that it was in the possession of third parties, when in fact it had the source code and did not produce it because it believed it was not relevant. Judge Ward found that the defendants willfully and intentionally violated the court's amended discovery order, and that the their conduct constituted discovery abuse. As sanction for the defendants' conduct, the court
1. Limited the defendants' time for voir dire to one-half of the amount of time that of the plaintiff;
2. Removed two juror strikes from the defendants, leaving them with a total of 2, while the plaintiff keeps four;
3. Limited the defendants' time for opening statements to one-half of the plaintiff's time;
4. Limited the defendants' time for closing statements to one-third of the plaintiff's time;
5. Prohibited the defendants from proffering any expert testimony or opinion from any source during trial regarding non-infringement, except through cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert witnesses;
6. Will instruct the jury that the court found that the defendants intentionally withheld documents from the plaintiff in willful violation of a specific court order to the contrary, and that the jury is entitled to consider this fact when determining the credibility of any witness called to testify in this matter; and
7. Awarded attorneys fees and costs to the plaintiff that are attributable to the defendants discovery abuses.

Posted by Michael Smith on July 18, 2007 at 11:48 AM in All Patent cases, Judge Everingham cases, Judge Ward cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply