Wilson v. Nichols & Shepherd Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing the similar designs of the District of Nevada’s and Northern District of California’s 27 local patent rules
• recognizing the similar designs of the District of Nevada’s 26 and Northern District of California’s local patent rules
• waiting more 12 than two months after issuance of claim construction order did not constitute diligence
• granting 16 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s amended non-infringement contentions on the basis that 17 references to prior art were not timely disclosed
• noting 1 detail their asserted claims and infringement contentions to ensure that they “crystallize their 2 theories of the case early in the litigation and . . . adhere to those theories once they have been 3 disclosed.”8 To that end, Rule 1-8(d
• “[T]he Court considers whether the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced by “eleventh-hour alterations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).