This quarter the Western District addressed the infrequently used practice of indicative rulings and cross-motions for sanctions resulting from accusations of perjury.
Indicative Rulings
In Medgraph v. Medtronic, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144982 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2015), U.S. Senior District Judge David G. Larimer analyzed a party’s right to obtain an “indicative ruling” pursuant to Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a patent infringement action. An indicative ruling is a ruling from the district court advising what relief it would grant on a timely motion made during the pendency of an appeal, if the appellate court were to remand the case to it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
