of its product as "patented” was a mismarking. Kor-CT is therefore inapposite to the issue before this Court' — i.e., whether a product marked with multiple patent numbers, some of which are not applicable, is an "unpatent-ed” article. 1 . During the May Docket Call, the Court denied in part Pro Patch’s Motion in Limine (Document No. 53) with respect to Pro Patch's personal jurisdiction defense, which the Court determined to have been waived. See PaineWebber Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Private Bank (Switz.), 260 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir.2001) ("[A] party may waive any jurisdictional objections if its conduct does 'not reflect a continuing objection to the power of the court to act over the defendant's person.’ ”); Schwartz v. M/V Gulf Supplier, 116 F.Supp.2d 831, 835 (S.D.Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Court carried the motion with respect to
holding that defendant waived personal jurisdiction defense by waiting nine months to bring a motion to dismiss during which time it engaged in a considerable amount of pretrial activity holding that defendant waived defense by failing to raise it during the nineyear life of the case and waiting until after judgment to bring it up holding that immediate right to appeal lies from denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction