Category Archives: Developing Law

Texas Supreme Court Holds that Conspiracy Cause of Action Has Same Statute of Limitations As Underlying Tort, Not Invariably a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

Posted on July 1, 2019 by Steven Callahan

Until April 5, 2019, every Texas court of appeals considering what statute of limitations applied to a conspiracy claim got it wrong. So holds the Texas Supreme Court in Agar Corp. v. Electro Circuits International (available here). In Agar, the … Continue reading →

Posted in Developing Law, Texas Supreme Court | Comments Off on Texas Supreme Court Holds that Conspiracy Cause of Action Has Same Statute of Limitations As Underlying Tort, Not Invariably a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

Another Decision Holding That Section 285 Attorney’s Fees Are Not Available From A Party’s Counsel (And Also Finding That Folks Don’t Go To Jail For Failing To Pay Debts)

Posted on June 16, 2019 by Steven Callahan

The Eastern District of Texas’ Magistrate Judge Payne, on June 5, 2019, issued a decision in My Health, Inc. v. ALR Technologies, Inc. (available here), finding that 35 U.S.C. § 285 does not allow an award of attorney’s fees against … Continue reading →

Posted in Developing Law | Comments Off on Another Decision Holding That Section 285 Attorney’s Fees Are Not Available From A Party’s Counsel (And Also Finding That Folks Don’t Go To Jail For Failing To Pay Debts)

Section 285 Of Patent Act Cannot Be Used To Obtain Attorney’s Fees From Opposing Counsel

Posted on June 1, 2019 by Steven Callahan

So holds the district court (C.D. Cal.) in Cap Export v. Zinus (available here). As I previously noted, courts have used Section 285 of the Patent Act—which provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Developing Law | Comments Off on Section 285 Of Patent Act Cannot Be Used To Obtain Attorney’s Fees From Opposing Counsel

CCRG Obtains Transfer of Patent Case From Delaware to Dallas

Posted on May 6, 2019 by Steven Callahan

Congrats to my partners Brett Charhon, Martin Robson, and Anthony Garza for obtaining a transfer of venue from Delaware to Dallas in a patent-infringement case we’re litigating on behalf of RMG Networks. Transfers out of Delaware are rare occurrences, especially … Continue reading →

Posted in Developing Law, Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions | Comments Off on CCRG Obtains Transfer of Patent Case From Delaware to Dallas

Owners of Patent Assertion Entities Beware—You May Be Personally Liable For The Defendant’s Attorney’s Fees

Posted on April 14, 2019 by Steven Callahan

Section 285 of the Patent Act states that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The statute does not say who pays the fees, but the assumption (mine, at … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Developing Law | Comments Off on Owners of Patent Assertion Entities Beware—You May Be Personally Liable For The Defendant’s Attorney’s Fees

Federal Circuit Finds That Demand Letters Are Now Sufficient To Create Personal Jurisdiction In District Where Demand Letters Are Received

Posted on April 7, 2019 by Steven Callahan

On December 7, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Jack Henry & Associates v. Plano Encryption Technologies (available here). Jack Henry and eleven Texas banks (collectively, the “Banks”) appealed Judge Godbey’s order dismissing their declaratory judgment action against … Continue reading →

Posted in Developing Law, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Godbey (Chief Judge) | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Finds That Demand Letters Are Now Sufficient To Create Personal Jurisdiction In District Where Demand Letters Are Received

PTAB Rejects Sovereign Immunity Defense In View Of Pending Litigation Brought By Sovereign

Posted on December 28, 2017 by Steven Callahan

Proving that even a broken clock is right twice a day, the PTAB in Ericsson v. Regents of the University of Minnesota (decision available here), rejected Minnesota’s sovereign-immunity defense to PTAB proceedings instituted by Ericsson (note: my firm represents Ericsson, … Continue reading →

Posted in Developing Law, U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on PTAB Rejects Sovereign Immunity Defense In View Of Pending Litigation Brought By Sovereign

Federal Circuit’s In re Micron Decision—TC Heartland Constituted Change In Law, But District Courts Can Still Deny Untimely Motions To Dismiss For Improper Venue Under Inherent Authority

Posted on November 26, 2017 by Steven Callahan

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision (which significantly limited the venues where a plaintiff can file patent-infringement lawsuits), many defendants raised venue challenges for the first time after answering the plaintiff’s complaint. And many courts held … Continue reading →

Posted in Developing Law, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on Federal Circuit’s In re Micron Decision—TC Heartland Constituted Change In Law, But District Courts Can Still Deny Untimely Motions To Dismiss For Improper Venue Under Inherent Authority

Much Ado About Nothing: Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Reviews

Posted on October 22, 2017 by Steven Callahan

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

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

Posted on September 24, 2017 by Steven Callahan

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