Supreme Court’s Medtronic v. Mirowski Decision

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures (decision available here). The Supreme Court held that, where a licensee asserts a declaratory judgment claim against a patent holder, it is the patent holder’s burden to prove infringement, in the process reversing the Federal Circuit’s ruling to the contrary. The Supreme Court noted that the patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement, that the operation of the declaratory judgment act is only procedural (leaving substantive rights unchanged), and the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim.

Posted in Developing Law | Comments Off on Supreme Court’s Medtronic v. Mirowski Decision

New Trademark Infringement Cases Filed In Northern District of Texas

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Steven Callahan

There have been many new trademark infringement lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Texas over the last several weeks, including:

  • Gateway Buick v. Behlmann Automotive Services. (Complaint available here).
  • Gearbox Software v. Apogee Software. (Complaint available here).
  • Heinz v. Figueroa Brothers. (Complaint available here).
  • RE/MAX v. Meridian Business Centers. (Complaint available here).
  • Sprint Solutions v. Zoubi Imports and Exports. (Complaint available here).
  • TRB IP Holdings v. Twisted Root Restaurant & Bar. (Complaint available here).
Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on New Trademark Infringement Cases Filed In Northern District of Texas

New Patent Cases Filed in the Northern District of Texas

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Steven Callahan

Over the last several weeks, there have been many new patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Texas, including:

  • Richmond v. Forever Gifts. The patent in suit claims technology relating to solar-powered garden lighting. (Complaint available here).
  • J.W. Pet Company v. Gramercy Products. The patents in suit relate to animal toys. (Complaint available here).
  • Smith’s Consumer Products v. Fortune Products. The patents in suit claim technology relating to abrasive sharpeners. (Complaint available here).
  • Summit 6 v. HTC, LG, Motorola, Apple, and Twitter. The patents in suit relate to web-based media submission tools. (Complaint available here).
  • Vehicle IP v. Basic Energy Services; Frozen Food Express; Oldcastle; Schneider National. The patents in suit claim technology relating to a method and apparatus for determining the tax of a vehicle. (Complaints available here, here, here, and here).
  • Super Resolution Technologies v. Nikon. The patents in suit claim methods relating to fluorescent nanoscopy. (Complaint available here).
  • Wingard v. Southwest Kia. The patent in suit claims technology relating to anti-theft devices. (Complaint available here).
  • Employment Law Compliance v. HRSmart. The patent in suit claims technology relating to employment law compliance, establishment, evaluation and review. (Complaint available here).
Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on New Patent Cases Filed in the Northern District of Texas

“The Effective Use of Electronic Media In the Courtroom” Presentation to Occur on February 27

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Steven Callahan

The Federal Bar Association, Dallas Chapter is inviting attorneys to attend a presentation by Kathleen J. Love on “The Effective Use of Electronic Media in the Courtroom.” The presentation will occur on Thursday, February 27, 2014 (from 12:00-1:00 p.m. on the Fifteenth Floor of the Federal Court House). More details can be found here.

Posted in Dallas Legal Community | Comments Off on “The Effective Use of Electronic Media In the Courtroom” Presentation to Occur on February 27

Federal Circuit Issues Long Awaited Lighting Ballast Decision

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On February 21, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in Lighting Ballast v. Phillip Electronics (decision available here). The case had been appealed from Judge O’Connor’s earlier decision, and the Federal Circuit sat en banc to determine what standard of appellate review applies to claim construction. The Federal Circuit ultimately concluded that de novo review of claim construction should continue to be applied (i.e., the scope of the patent grant is reviewed de novo as  a matter of law).

Posted in Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Issues Long Awaited Lighting Ballast Decision

Northern District of Texas’ Federal Civil Practice Seminar To Occur on January 16

Posted on January 4, 2014 by Steven Callahan

The Federal Bar Association, Dallas Chapter, is hosting its annual Federal Civil Practice Seminar on Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 8:00 a.m. at the Belo Mansion. This will be a great program, with speakers including Judges Ferguson, Boyle, O’Connor, Cureton, Kinkeade, and Horan. The keynote address will be given by Rusty Hardin, and there will also be a panel of general counsels from Exxon Mobile, JCPenney, and Southwest Airlines.

It is anticipated that the seminar will be approved for 5.5 total preparatory hours of Minimum Continuing Legal Education by the State Bar of Texas, including 2.5 hours of ethics.

Posted in Practice Tips | Comments Off on Northern District of Texas’ Federal Civil Practice Seminar To Occur on January 16

Judge O’Connor Issues Costs And Attorney’s Fees Decision in ICON v. Travelocity

Posted on January 4, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On November 18, 2013, Judge O’Conner issued an Order (available here), ruling upon issues regarding, among other things, Travelocity’s bill of costs and Travelocity’s request for attorney’s fees. Judge O’Conner found that costs were appropriate and awarded $75,524. Judge O’Conner denied Travelocity’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that ICON’s attempt to oppose summary judgment was not objectively or subjectively unreasonable.

Posted in Costs, Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Judge O’Connor Issues Costs And Attorney’s Fees Decision in ICON v. Travelocity

Judge Kinkeade Issues Injunction in Red Dog Mobile Shelters v. Rising S

Posted on January 4, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On December 2, 2013, Judge Kinkeade issued a Final Judgment And Agreed Permanent Injunction (available here) in Red Dog Mobile Shelters v. Rising S. The injunction prohibits defendant from selling certain shelters during the term of the patent-in-suit.

Posted in Injunctions, Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Issues Injunction in Red Dog Mobile Shelters v. Rising S

Judge O’Conner Issues Costs Decision in Summit 6 v. Samsung

Posted on January 4, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On November 26, 2013, Judge O’Conner entered an Order (available here) in Summit 6 v. Samsung. The Order resolved issues regarding Summit 6’s bill of costs. Summit 6 sought $168,000 in costs; Samsung contended that costs should be taxed at $61,000. The Court sustained Samsung’s objection to costs associated with travel of officers and employees of Summit 6, sustained Samsung’s objection to certain copying costs (resulting in a reduction of such costs by 50%), overruled Samsung’s objection as to electronic discovery costs, sustained Samsung’s objection to trial demonstrative costs, and sustained Samsung’s objections to special-order demonstrative magnets, a Dry Erase board, audiovisual setup, preparation, and “tear down” expenses. Judge O’Conner concluded that Summit 6 was entitled to $78,000 in costs.

Posted in Costs, Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Judge O’Conner Issues Costs Decision in Summit 6 v. Samsung

Judge Kinkeade Grants Transfer Motion in Victualic v. Romar Supply Patent Infringement Case

Posted on January 2, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On November 14, 2013, Judge Kinkeade issued a transfer opinion (available here) in Victualic v. Romar Supply. Judge Kinkeade granted the defendant’s motion to transfer venue, finding that transfer was appropriate in light of the first-t0-file rule.

Posted in Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Grants Transfer Motion in Victualic v. Romar Supply Patent Infringement Case