Mary Helen Murguia
Judge Murguia no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Murguia decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a novel administrative-law question, she treated congressionally authorized presidential directives as potentially enforceable against an agency when they imposed a required, discrete action.
“when an agency fails to comply with a statutory obligation, judicial review of that final agency action or inaction is generally available under the APA.”
She declined sanctions where a losing copyright theory was incorrect but not so objectively baseless as to be frivolous.
“Though Plaintiffs legal theory ultimately proved to be incorrect as explained above, this Court does not find it is so objectively baseless to qualify as completely frivolous.”
Procedural preferences
At the dismissal stage, she confined the analysis to the complaint rather than considering external evidence about the officers' training, experience, or observations.
“It would be inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings for the Court to consider evidence external to the Complaint, such as the training, experience and observations of the arresting officers.”
She treated failure to preserve an expert-methodology objection before post-trial briefing as a forfeiture of that challenge.
“Defendants cannot attack Mr. Freed’s methodology through post trial motions when they have failed to make the proper record.”
She rejected a claim-construction argument first raised at oral argument as untimely.
“First, the Court notes that this argument is extremely untimely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL Regarding Plaintiffs’ Claim of Willful Infringement (Doc. 651).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL Regarding Invalidity of the '135 Patent for Failure to Disclose Best Mode (Doc. 731).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL that Claims 20-27 are Invalid for Failure to Satisfy the Written Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (Doc. 732).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL Regarding Plaintiffs’ Failure to Prove that Gore’s Accused Products Meet the Typicality Element of Claims 20-27 (Doc. 734).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL that Claims 20-27 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL Regarding Plaintiffs’ Claim that Propaten Infringes the '135 Patent (Doc. 737).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL Regarding Invalidity for Anticipation by Dr. Norton’s December 1971 Use in ‘Mrs. B’ (Doc. 740).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore’s Motion for JMOL Regarding Invalidity for Improper Inventorship Because Cooper and Goldfarb are Joint Inventors (Doc. 741).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Gore Motion for JMOL Regarding Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing (Doc. 652).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Reduce Jury Verdict. (Dkt. #376)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgement not Withstanding the Verdict, Accounting, Remittitur, or in the Alternative, a New Trial. (Dkt. # 395).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. (Dkt. #371).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Increased Damages and Profits. (Dkt. #396).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. #39.)”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Expedited Rule 16 Conference. (Dkt. # 49.)”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the BLM’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 25).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability of Defendants as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 17).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting EPMC’s motion for partial judgment”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Zurich’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 147)”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part Defendant Avnet, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, (Dkt. # 83).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff Michelle Colson’s Motion for Collective Action Notification, (Dkt. # 18).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Parties’ stipulation setting forth a protocol for the informal exchange of electronically stored information. (Dkt. # 111).”
“IT IS ORDERED denying the Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 46).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Statement of Facts, (Dkt. # 59)”
“the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. (Dkt. # 63).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying in part and granting in part Stinger’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity or Noninfringement. (Dkt. # 160).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting TASER’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement. (Dkt. # 184).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Stinger’s request for consolidated oral argument.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying TASER’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Counsel Declaration in Support of TASER’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement. (Dkt. # 197).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying TASER’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply or in the Alternative to Strike Stinger Systems, Inc.’s Improper and Oversized Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. # 199).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant Capitol Detective Agency’s Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 104).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. # 118).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. # 119).”
A historical record
Judge Murguia no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.