Subscribe to ND Tex Blog
-
Recent Posts
- Patent Pilot Program To Expire In July 2021
- Repeat Copyright Plaintiff (Who Is Also Attorney Who Represents Himself) Hit With $172,173 Award For Losing Copyright Case
- Federal Circuit to W.D. Tex.: Court Congestion Not Enough To Justify Keeping Case On Transfer Motion
- Supreme Court Holds That Booking.Com May Be A Trademark
- Post-Judgment Discovery Revealing Party As Judgment-Proof Shell Company Warrants Re-Opening Case And Joining New Parties (Including Party’s Owners and Law Firm)
Archives
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
Categories
- Attorney's Fees
- Costs
- Dallas Legal Community
- Developing Law
- Discovery
- Dondi
- Ethics
- FAQs
- Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
- Federal Rules
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Injunctions
- Judge Boyle
- Judge Brown
- Judge Cummings (Ret.)
- Judge Fish
- Judge Fitzwater
- Judge Furgeson (Ret.)
- Judge Godbey (Chief Judge)
- Judge Hendrix
- Judge Kacsmaryk
- Judge Kinkeade
- Judge Lindsay
- Judge Lynn
- Judge Maloney (Ret.)
- Judge McBryde (Ret.)
- Judge Means
- Judge O'Connor
- Judge Pittman
- Judge Robinson (Ret.)
- Judge Scholer
- Judge Solis (Ret.)
- Judge Starr
- Local Rules
- Magistrate Judge Averitte (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Bryant
- Magistrate Judge Cureton
- Magistrate Judge Frost
- Magistrate Judge Horan
- Magistrate Judge Kaplan (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Koenig (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Lane (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Parker
- Magistrate Judge Ramirez
- Magistrate Judge Ray
- Magistrate Judge Reno
- Magistrate Judge Roach (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Rutherford
- Magistrate Judge Stickney (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Toliver
- N.D. Tex. News
- N.D. Tex. Patent Rules
- New Lawsuits Filed
- Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions
- Northern District Practice Tips
- Personal
- Practice Tips
- Sanctions
- Texas Supreme Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
Author Archives: Steven Callahan
Chief Judge Lynn Denies Transfer Motion in Blackberry v. Avaya
On October 10, 2017, Chief Judge Lynn entered an Order (available here) in Blackberry v. Avaya. After concluding that Avaya fell short of meeting its burden to show that the proposed transferee venue was clearly more convenient than the Northern … Continue reading
Posted in Judge Lynn
Comments Off on Chief Judge Lynn Denies Transfer Motion in Blackberry v. Avaya
Much Ado About Nothing: Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Reviews
I predict that tribal sovereign immunity will have little, if any, effect on inter partes reviews (IPRs). But if I’m wrong (and I’ve *occasionally* been wrong before), tribal sovereign immunity will lead to the death of IPRs, absent Congressional action. … Continue reading
Posted in Developing Law, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Comments Off on Much Ado About Nothing: Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Reviews
Magistrate Judge Stickney Grants Motion For Costs, Finds $350/Hour Attorney-Fee Rate Reasonable
On September 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stickney entered an Order (available here) in The Sugar Art v. Confectionary Arts International. In the case, the plaintiff previously brought suit against the defendant in the Western District of Texas, and, in response … Continue reading
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Magistrate Judge Stickney (Ret.)
Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Stickney Grants Motion For Costs, Finds $350/Hour Attorney-Fee Rate Reasonable
Judge Kinkeade Refuses To Disqualify Sterne Kessler from Representing Global Tel*Link
On September 18, 2017, Judge Kinkeade entered an Order (available here) in Securus v. Global Tel*Link. Securus had moved to disqualify Sterne Kessler from representing Global Tel. Before January 2017, Global Tel was represented by Kellogg Huber. Two Kellogg attorneys … Continue reading
Posted in Judge Kinkeade
Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Refuses To Disqualify Sterne Kessler from Representing Global Tel*Link
Judge Kinkeade Grants Motion to Compel in Securus Technologies v. Global Tel*Link Corporation
On September 13, 2017, Judge Kinkeade granted, in part, a motion to compel filed in Securus v. Global Tel*Link (order available here). Plaintiff asserted, in its motion to compel, that defendant failed to comply with certain requests for production (e.g., … Continue reading
Posted in Judge Kinkeade
Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Grants Motion to Compel in Securus Technologies v. Global Tel*Link Corporation
In Re Cray—Another Blow To East Texas’ Patent Docket: Employees Working From Home Are Generally Not Enough To Confer Venue Upon A District In Patent Cases
On September 21, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in In re Cray Inc. (available here). As I noted in an earlier post, after the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision, the only proper venue for a patent-infringement case against … Continue reading
Posted in Developing Law, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Comments Off on In Re Cray—Another Blow To East Texas’ Patent Docket: Employees Working From Home Are Generally Not Enough To Confer Venue Upon A District In Patent Cases
Judge Kinkeade Awards Attorney’s Fees To SAP In Patent Case Brought By Investpic, Finding Case Exceptional In SAP’s Favor
On September 7, 2017, Judge Kinkeade issued an Order (available here) in SAP America v. Investpic. The Order granted SAP’s Motion to Find Case Exceptional and Award Fees. Under the Patent Act, the Court may award attorney’s fees to the … Continue reading
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Judge Kinkeade
Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Awards Attorney’s Fees To SAP In Patent Case Brought By Investpic, Finding Case Exceptional In SAP’s Favor
Judge Kinkeade Denies Special Master Costs in SAP v. InvestPic
On September 11, 2017, Judge Kinkeade entered an Order in SAP v. InvestPic (available here). The Order denied SAP’s request to include in the Court’s award of costs the costs incurred by SAP related to the appointment of the case’s … Continue reading
Posted in Judge Kinkeade, Practice Tips
Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Denies Special Master Costs in SAP v. InvestPic
Judge Kinkeade Denies Motion to Stay Pending IPR Review
On September 11, 2017, Judge Kinkeade denied (in an electronic order available here) a motion to stay pending inter partes review. Judge Kinkeade found that the “reasons supporting a stay of this case are speculative and that [the moving party] … Continue reading
Posted in Judge Kinkeade, U.S. Supreme Court
Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Denies Motion to Stay Pending IPR Review
Impression Products v. Lexmark: Supreme Court (Again) Cuts Back Patent Rights
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark (available here). The Court decided two issues. First, if a patentee sells an item under an express restriction on the purchaser’s right to reuse or … Continue reading
Posted in Developing Law, U.S. Supreme Court
Comments Off on Impression Products v. Lexmark: Supreme Court (Again) Cuts Back Patent Rights