`
`SIPCO, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`V.
`
`ABB, INC., et al,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`6:11-CV-0048 LED-JDL
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC’s (“SIPCO”) Motion to Strike Notice of
`
`Joinder (Doc. No. 229) (“Motion”). Defendant Coulomb Technologies, Inc. (“Coulomb”) filed
`
`a response (Doc. No. 238) (“Response”) to which SIPCO replied (Doc. No. 238) (“Reply”). On
`
`March 5, 2012, before filing its Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Coulomb filed a Notice of
`
`Joinder incorporating Schlage/Trane’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement for
`
`Indefiniteness (Doc. No. 203). See (Doc. No. 205).1 The Court is not persuaded that Coulomb’s
`
`Notice of Joinder prejudices SIPCO or further increases the burden on the Court such that it
`
`violates the Court’s standing Order. Accordingly the Motion is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`1 Coulomb’s motivation in Joining Schlage/Trane’s Summary Judgment Motion is a mystery to the Court. Joining
`the Motion results in Coulomb simultaneously arguing that the term “low power” is insolubly ambiguous, i.e.,
`indefinite, but also that the term has a definite meaning, i.e. “transmission power of about 1.5 milliwatts.”
`
` ___________________________________
` JOHN D. LOVE
` UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2012.
`
`