EGLA CORP and Dr. Edwin Hernandez-Mondragon are assisting Tracktime LLC in a patent matter against Amazon, Inc. The case has developed to the point that a motion for summary judgement is filed, which was recently denied, together with other legal matters that Dr. Hernandez assisted with his testimony. Some public rulings on the case are found online https://casetext.com/case/tracktime-llc-v-amazoncom-inc-1
However, the most recent order as of June 30th, 2023 was:
ORDER – IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff TrackTime, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Patent-Eligibility (D.I. 193) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (D.I. 184) are DENIED; (2) Plaintiff TrackTime, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Non-Prior Art Status of the Master ‘431 Patent (D.I. 191) is DENIED; (3) Plaintiff TrackTime, LLC’s Daubert Motion to Exclude in Part the Opinion Testimony of Dr. Macartney and Dr. Schonfeld (D.I. 195) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART; and (4) Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Testimony of TrackTime’s Expert Dr. Hernandez-Mondragon (D.I. 188) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 6/30/2023. (dlw)
By reading the order, Dr. Edwin cannot discuss during trial the following matters:
- Mr. Chamberlein’s credibility (a witness in the case)
- Adopt another expert’s testimony (from a prior filing)
- Some rulings regarding Judicial Estoppel
These are minor issues in comparison to mammoth reports made b myself regarding source code, validity issues, and other matters. In fact, the order clearly denied under 35 USC 101.
What is a Motion for Summary Judgment?
A motion for summary judgment is a legal request made by one party in a lawsuit asking the court to decide the case in their favor without going to trial. The party filing the motion argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that the law supports their position, entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. The motion typically includes a written memorandum, supporting evidence, and legal arguments outlining why the opposing party’s claims lack merit. The court will review the motion, along with any opposing arguments and evidence, and determine whether there are indeed no genuine issues of material fact that would necessitate a trial. If the court grants the motion, it effectively resolves the case in favor of the moving party without the need for further litigation.
It seems that the case is going to trial in September where Dr. Hernandez is expected to testify.
PDF Embedder requires a url attribute PDF Embedder requires a url attribute