T-MOBILE USA, INC. v. HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., C14-1351-RAJ. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20170418i86
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2017
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA, Inc.'s Objection to Jury Trial on Unjust Enrichment and Reasonable Royalty. Dkt. # 403. Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. opposes Defendant's objection. Dkt. # 407. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to Defendant's notice. Defendant has not presented sufficient authority proving that these issues should not be presented to the jury. Moreover, Defendant has been awa
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA, Inc.'s Objection to Jury Trial on Unjust Enrichment and Reasonable Royalty. Dkt. # 403. Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. opposes Defendant's objection. Dkt. # 407. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to Defendant's notice. Defendant has not presented sufficient authority proving that these issues should not be presented to the jury. Moreover, Defendant has been awar..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA, Inc.'s Objection to Jury Trial on Unjust Enrichment and Reasonable Royalty. Dkt. # 403. Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. opposes Defendant's objection. Dkt. # 407.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to Defendant's notice. Defendant has not presented sufficient authority proving that these issues should not be presented to the jury. Moreover, Defendant has been aware of these issues for quite some time yet waited for the eve of trial to object. This Court has been clear that it will not allow parties to try their cases by ambush or surprise. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's notice of objection. Dkt. # 403.
Source: Leagle
