 the alleged infringer) will proceed first, presenting evi­dence including direct testimony on its requested relief (i.e., a declaration of patent invalidity, unenforceability and/or non-infringement). in the second stage, the "defendant" (the patentee) must then simultaneously present evidence both: (a) in defense of that declaratory relief claim, and (b) in support of its infringement counterclaim. What follows is a third stage of trial, at which the plaintiff simultane­ously offers its rebuttal on its case and its opposition on defendant's counterclaim, and then a wholly superfluous fourth stage, wherein the defendant finally offers the rebuttal case on its counterclaim.
This convoluted order of presentation might make some sense in those cases in which the claims and counterclaims at issue are separate and distinct. In declara­tory judgment actions, however, the so-called "claims" generally are just the arguments that the plaintiff would have presented as "defenses" had it lost the race to the courthouse. As demonstrated in the patent lawsuit hypothetical above, the declaratory judgment plaintiffs claims for patent invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement are actually just defens­es to patent infringement. Trying the defenses in advance of the claims will both lengthen the trial and force the finder of fact to take in the evidence backwards. By the time the case is trial-ready, whatever value the declaratory judgment action had as a "preemptive strike" will have long been used up. The ensuing problems with presentation of evidence are an unneces­sary byproduct.
The second, lesser tried, remedy is a motion to set the order of evidence at trial, pursuant to Rule 611(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 611(a) provides that "The Court shah exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of inter­rogating witnesses and presenting evi­dence so as to I) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascer­tainment of truth, 2) avoid needless Con­sumption of time, and 3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrass­ment." While a motion under Rule 611(a) cannot alter the parties' designations as plaintiff and defendant, it can employ the court's considerable discretion over the presentation of trial evidence, to effect a more economic and sensible trial.
Accordingly, given the anomalies of evi­dence presentation in many declaratory judgment actions, a defendant/counter-claimant should consider a pretrial motion pursuant to Rule 61 I(a) to reorder evi­dence so that it proceeds first on its coun­terclaims, Such a motion offers the court a means for eliminating duplicative evi­dence presentation, reducing the need to recall witnesses, and allowing for a more understandable presentation of evidence Though Rule 611(a) has not been widely discussed, federal court practitioners should consider this tool in seeking to avoid jury confusion, the needless con­sumption of time, and general inefficien­cies at trial.
[1]. The DIA confers no independent basis for juris­diction; It Is procedural only. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 US. 227. 240 (1937).
[3]. 257 E.Supp. 219, 237 (D.N.J. 1966).
[4]. See Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc. 84F.3d 592, 595 (2d Cir. 1996).
[6]. See, e.g.. Datamize Inc. v. Fid Brokerage Servs., LLC. 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29100, **20-21(E.D. Tex April 22, 2004).
[7]. See e.g., Anheauser Busch, Inc. v. Labatt Ltd, et al, 89 F.3d 1339, 1344 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1109 (1997); Friede & Goldman, Ltd. v. Gotaverken Arendal Consultants, AB, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8090, *7 (E.D. La. May 26, 2000); Litton Sys. v. VHC, Inc, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10305, **4-5 (N.D. Tex. July 9, 1998); Starter Corp. v. Converse Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17892, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 1996).
[8]. Johnson v. Mortham. 915 F.Supp. 1574, 1581 (N.D. Fla. 1996).
[9]. 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25, *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3 1995).
[12]. 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20702, **1-2 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 11, 1992) (quoting Commercial Iron & Metal Co. v. Bache Halsey, Stewart, Inc., 581 F.2d 246 (10th Cir. 1978)).
The Nevada Center for Bioinformatics is a core facility providing bioinformatics research resources, services and training to Nevada scientists in the support of existing research programs and in the development of new programs and grant applications.
Explore our services for information on our capabilities, and contact us if you have questions. Please get in touch with us at least three weeks before major deadlines. We're located in the Center for Bioinformatics—a detached building south of South Medical Way and east of Mackay Stadium.
The University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine hosts the Nevada INBRE which is funded by a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (8 P20 GM103440) from the National Institutes of Health.const _ = require('lodash');
const moment = require('moment');
const signale = require('signale');

const AddressMetric = require('../model/address-metric');
const computeAddressMetrics = require('../metrics/compute-address-metrics');
const getDatesForMetricsJob = require('../metrics/get-dates-for-metrics-job');
const MetricsJobMetadata = require('../model/metrics-job-metadata');
const withTransaction = require('../util/with-transaction');

const logger = signale.scope('cache address metrics');

const cacheAddressMetrics = async () => {
  const dates = await getDatesForMetricsJob('address');

  if (dates === null) {
    logger.info('no metrics available to update');
    return;
  }

  logger.time('compute metrics');
  const results = await Promise.all(
    dates.map(date => {
      return computeAddressMetrics(date);
    }),
  );
  logger.timeEnd('compute metrics');

  const metrics = _.flatten(results);

  logger.time('persist metrics');
  await withTransaction(async session => {
    if (metrics.length > 0) {
      await AddressMetric.bulkWrite(
        metrics.map(metric => ({
          updateOne: {
            filter: { date: metric.date, address: metric.address },
            update: { $set: metric },
            upsert: true,
          },
        })),
        { session },
      );
    }

    await MetricsJobMetadata.bulkWrite(
      dates.map(date => ({
        updateOne: {
          filter: { date, metricType: 'address' },
          update: {
            $set: {
              date,
              metricType: 'address',
              lastUpdated: Date.now(),
            },
          },
          upsert: true,
        },
      })),
      { session },
    );
  });
  logger.timeEnd('persist metrics');

  logger.success(
    `cached address metrics for dates: ${_.join(
      dates.map(date => moment(date).format('DD/MM/YYYY')),
      ', ',
    )}`,
  );
};

module.exports = cacheAddressMetrics;
Ken Jennings is a trivia icon. He is the longest-running Jeopardy! champ in history. With a 70+ game-winning streak, he probably won’t be dethroned any time soon. At the same time, he has made appearances on several other quiz-based shows. Currently, he’s one of the in-house geniuses on The Chase on ABC. However, that’s not where his talent stops.
Ken Jennings also has a killer sense of humor. He’s one of those guys who can take a simple observation and turn it into a real knee-slapper of a joke. He did just that in a recent tweet. Last night, he wanted to know why Canada’s closed border wasn’t able to keep out one of the country’s most famous nuisances.
In the tweet, Ken Jennings posted a photo of three Canadian geese. As usual, Jennings asks the hard-hitting questions in the caption. This time he wants to know why the American people still have to deal with the highly aggressive and noisy birds. After all, our northern border has been closed for months. The only exception to the closure is essential travel.
On one hand, it could be that Canadian geese don’t know the border is closed