On September 18, in identical opinions issued in separate cases against Google and Apple, EDVA District Judge Michael Nachmanoff ruled that four patents directed toward geolocation of mobile devices claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Geoscope Technologies PTE, LTD. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:22CV1373, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165795 (E.D.Va. Sept. 18, 2023); Geoscope Technologies PTE, LTD. v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:22CV1331, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165802 (E.D.Va. Sept. 18, 2023).

Plaintiffs who secure a preliminary injunction may now be able to recover attorney’s fees in the Eastern District of Virginia, due to the Fourth Circuit’s departure from its previous position that such plaintiffs are not “prevailing parties” for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees.

It is common in commercial litigation for a company to offer an employee as a witness to testify about the design, capabilities and features of the company’s products or services. Usually, such a witness testifies as a fact witness offering testimony based on his or her personal knowledge under Fed. R. Evid. 602, rather than as an expert witness offering opinion testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Following up on our post on obtaining temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in the EDVA, a recent decision by an EDVA judge clarifies that a motion to extend a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed after the close of business on the date the TRO expires is untimely because “the TRO had already expired at the time that the Plaintiff moved the Court” for an extension. XYZ Corporation v. The Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, Case No. 1:23C-cv-00673-PTG-JFA (E.D.Va. July 25, 2023).

In significant and hard-fought litigation, it is not uncommon for parties to reach a settlement that includes an agreement to jointly move the court to vacate earlier rulings on key motions in the case. For a settling plaintiff that lost the earlier ruling, vacatur can be important to preserve potential claims against other defendants. Likewise, vacatur of an adverse ruling against a defendant allows that defendant to contest the issue in future cases. For the party that prevailed on the motion, there is often little incentive to oppose an agreement to request vacatur if it is part of an otherwise favorable settlement agreement.