Jury Returns Verdict Of Non-Infringement, Invalidity in American Imaging v. Autodesk

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On October 16, 2013, the jury returned its verdict in American Imaging v. Autodesk. The jury found the asserted claims not infringed and invalid. The jury’s verdict, along with Judge Lynn’s charge, is available here.

Posted in Judge Lynn | Comments Off on Jury Returns Verdict Of Non-Infringement, Invalidity in American Imaging v. Autodesk

Jury Returns Conviction of Inmate Who Plotted to Murder Northern District of Texas Judge

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Steven Callahan

The FBI announced on December 11, 2013 that an inmate has been convicted by a jury “in the attempted murder-for-hire of a federal judge in Texas.” The Northern District of Texas judge had been presiding over the inmate’s federal tax case. The FBI’s press release is available here.

Posted in N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Jury Returns Conviction of Inmate Who Plotted to Murder Northern District of Texas Judge

New Patent Cases Filed In Northern District of Texas

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Steven Callahan

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

  • American Leather v. Ultra-Mek (complaint available here). American leather asserts infringement of convertible furniture patents.
  • Felix v. VStructural, LLC (complaint available here). Felix claims defendants infringe patents claiming inventions used in concrete constructions.
  • Guidance v. AT&T (complaint available here). Guidance claims AT&T infringes a patent titled “System and Method for Determining Geolocation of a Transmitter.”
  • iLife Technologies v. Body Media (complaint available here); iLife Technologies v. Nintendo (complaint available here). iLife claims Body Media and Nintendo infringe six patents directed to systems and methods for evaluating movement of a body and detecting motions of a body.
  • Slide Fire Solutions v. 2nd Am Arms (complaint available here). Slide Fire claims 2nd Am Arms infringes patents directed to firearm technology.
Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on New Patent Cases Filed In Northern District of Texas

Federal Rule 45 Substantially Amended

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

Effective December 1, 2013, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (dealing with subpoenas) has been amended. Among other things, the rule now: (i) requires the subpoena to issue from the court where the action is pending; (ii) allows service anywhere in the United States; and (iii) allows the court where compliance with the subpoena is required to transfer a motion under Rule 45 to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.

Posted in Federal Rules | Comments Off on Federal Rule 45 Substantially Amended

Judge Godbey Resolves Summary Judgment Motions in MobileMedia v. Blackberry

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On November 15, 2013, Judge Godbey issued an Order (available here) resolving various motions for summary judgment in MobileMedia v. Blackbery. Judge Godbey granted summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to three patents-in-suit.

MobileMedia also moved for summary on various RIM affirmative defenses. Judge Godbey found that Blackberry, in response to MobileMedia’s contention interrogatory concerning affirmative defenses, had simply recited the elements of the affirmative defneses without any actual factual content (a 30(b)(6) deposition on the same topic did not provide significant further benefit). But, in response to the summary judgment motion, “Blackberry identified extensive facts not previously disclosed in discovery[.]” Judge Godbey sustained MobileMedia’s objection to this new evidence, and granted summary judgment in MobileMedia’s favor on the affirmative defenses:

MMI objected to this new evidence on the basis that it was never disclosed in discovery. This is precisely the vice that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) attempts to prevent. The Court sustains MMI’s objection to BlackBerry’s summary judgment evidence not previously disclosed in discovery. The Court finds that BlackBerry thus fails to raise sufficient evidence on its affirmative defenses to go to the jury, and therefore grants MMI’s motion for partial summary judgment on BlackBerry’s affirmative defenses.

Posted in Judge Godbey (Chief Judge), Practice Tips | Comments Off on Judge Godbey Resolves Summary Judgment Motions in MobileMedia v. Blackberry

Eastern District of Texas Adopts Model Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art To Reduce Costs

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On October 29, 2013, the Eastern District of Texas adopted a model order (available here) focusing patent claims and prior art to reduce cost. The highlights from the model order are as follows:

(i) by the close of claim construction discovery, the patent holder shall assert no more than 10 claims from each patent and a total of 32 claims;

(ii) fourteen days later, the defendant shall elect no more than 12 prior art references against each patent and not more than a total of 40 references;

(iii) twenty-eight days before serving expert reports, the patent holder shall narrow its asserted claims down to no more than 5 asserted claims per patent, and no more than 16 claims total; and

(iv) on the date for service of burden expert reports, the defendant shall limit its prior art references to 6 per patent, and no more than a total of 20 references (each obvious combinations count as a reference).

If the patent holder asserts only one patent, all per-patent limits are increased by 50%. Absent agreement between the parties, modifications of the model order must meet the “good cause” standard.

Posted in Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions | Comments Off on Eastern District of Texas Adopts Model Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art To Reduce Costs

Abraham Lincoln Quoted in Meet and Confer Order in Apple v. Samsung Case

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

We came across this interesting order from the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case (pending in the Northern District of California). The order discusses the importance of meeting and conferring to try to resolve issues, and begins as follows:

Before he spoke of houses divided, proclaimed emancipation and saved our union, Abraham Lincoln was just another trial lawyer in the woods of Illinois. A decade before he was elected president, Lincoln wrote to his fellow lawyers: “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.”

Posted in Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions | Comments Off on Abraham Lincoln Quoted in Meet and Confer Order in Apple v. Samsung Case

Fifth Circuit Appellate Rule Change

Posted on December 15, 2013 by Steven Callahan

Effective December 1, 2013, the Fifth Circuit adopted rule changes, and certain Appellate Rules were amended. This document explains the changes, which relate to, among other things, record citations.

Posted in Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Appellate Rule Change

CCRG Interviews Trey Branham, Plaintiffs’ Attorney In Parker v. ABC Debt Relief FLSA Trial

Posted on November 5, 2013 by Steven Callahan

As litigators know, the vast majority of cases do not make it to trial. The parties either reach a settlement, or the Court disposes of the case on a motion to dismiss or at summary judgment. Parker v. ABC Debt Relief, however, was tried in September before Judge Solis and, on September 11, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (see verdict form here). For more information about the Parker case, see the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (available here) and Judge Solis’ Opinion denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part (available here).

CCRG recently caught up with Trey Branham, of Branham Law LLP and interviewed him regarding the Parker case.

CCRG: Tell us about the Parker case.

Branham: Our clients were former employees of two debt settlement companies. These companies are hired by people who find themselves in significant consumer debt and want to take advantage of the companies’ services to lower the amount of debt they are in. Our clients were the sales and service people for the companies. They worked substantial hours over 40 in every week during which they were employed and were never paid overtime. Judge Solis granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on essentially everything but damages and the actual amount of hours worked. Judge Solis found as a matter of law that all of the Defendants were joint employers and that no exemption from overtime applied to any of the employees.

CCRG: How long did the trial last?

Branham: 3 days.

CCRG: How did Judge Solis determine how long to give the parties for trial?

Branham: He did not impose a specific number of trial days.  He asked the Plaintiffs how long we needed and we estimated a little more than 2 days of evidence.   Given that we had to call 17 witnesses, the judge thought that was a fair estimate and gave us what we asked for.  I think the bottom line with Judge Solis is to know what you really need as opposed to what you would wish for and be able to explain why you need the time you need if asked.  We moved fast with no big wind ups and I think the Court appreciated that.

CCRG: Did Judge Solis impose any time limitations on evidence, opening statements, etc.?

Branham: Judge Solis limited opening statements to 30 minutes per side and closing statements were limited to 45 minutes. There were no per se limitations on evidence imposed, but we moved very quickly as the only real fact issue was whether or not our clients worked overtime and, if so, how much. Had we been required to prove liability and employer issues, we would have needed at least a couple of additional days.

CCRG: Were you allowed to conduct voir dire?

Branham: Judge Solis conducted most of the voir dire, but permitted the parties to each do an additional 15 minutes of follow up.

CCRG: How did Judge Solis handle exhibits (e.g., were they pre-admitted or did you have to prove up each exhibit with your witnesses)?

Branham: Exhibits were handled on an as offered basis. Judge Solis made quick and decisive rulings in admitting or excluding evidence.

CCRG: What, if any, use did the parties make of the courtroom technology available in Judge Solis’ courtroom?

Branham: Plaintiffs took full advantage of the Court’s technology.  I like to mix up the way evidence is presented. I think part of a jury trial is keeping the jury engaged. So we used hard documents with the elmo, digital documents through the Court’s computer monitor systems and powerpoints. I also highly recommend the TrialPad app for those who are looking to bring more digital document manipulation to their trials. I do not think there is a better presentation tool available to the litigator right now.

CCRG: Any practical advice for those trying a case in Judge Solis’ courtroom?

Branham: Judge Solis is a trial lawyer’s judge. He lets the parties try their cases and only interjects when objections are made.  Move your case quickly, don’t have lapses in evidence, and be prepared. He is more than willing to let the parties make their argument and record, listens to the arguments of counsel and then makes rulings as required.  It was a pleasure to work in his courtroom. His staff are also top notch. If you are trying a case in his courtroom, take advantage of the opportunity to meet his staff who will show you how the courtroom works before trial. Just call chambers and make an appointment.

CCRG: What are the next steps for the case?

Branham: We are currently awaiting the entry of judgment and a ruling on our attorneys’ fees application. The Defendants have informed us that they intend to appeal.

_______________________________________________________

CCRG thanks Trey for his time in talking with us and wishes him success in this and his future cases.

Posted in Judge Solis (Ret.), Practice Tips | Comments Off on CCRG Interviews Trey Branham, Plaintiffs’ Attorney In Parker v. ABC Debt Relief FLSA Trial

New Patent Cases Filed In Northern District of Texas

Posted on November 5, 2013 by Steven Callahan

In recent weeks, there have been a number of new patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Texas, including:

  • BlackBerry v. Cypress Semiconductor (complaint available here). Claiming that it “turns to the courts only reluctantly,” BlackBerry accuses Cypress of infringing two Blackberry patents through the sale of Cypress’ system-on-chip products. The case was filed on November 4, 2013.
  • Cinsay v. New Antics (complaint available here). Cinsay claims New Antics’ products infringe by using interactive videos. The case was filed on October 16, 2013.
  • Employment Law Compliance v. Empower Software Solutions (complaint available here). ELC claims ESS infringes ELC’s patent through the sale of its EmpowerTime, EmplowerPay and EmpowerMe products. The case was filed on October 17, 2013.
  • Erect-A-Line v. Eurobend (complaint available here). Erect-A-Line seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed Eurobend’s patent rights. The case was filed on November 1, 2013.
  • Super Resolution Technologies v. GE HealthCare (complaint available here). SRT claims GE infringes SRT’s patent directed to a fluorescent nanoscopy method through the sale of GE’s super-resolution microscope system. The complaint was filed on October 28, 2013.
  • LT Tech v. Techexcel, Premier, The First American Corporation, and Samina (complaint available here). LT Tech claims defendants infringe the patent in suit through the sale of their accused products. The complaint was filed on October 22, 2013.
  • Mobile Enhancement Solutions v. Nokia (complaint available here). MES sued Nokia alleging infringement of MES’ patents directed to transmission systems with improved synchronization and mobile telephones with amplified listening through the sale of Nokia’s phones. MES filed suit on October 1, 2013.
  • Matson, Inc. v. Cowboy Containments (complaint available here).  Matson claims Cowboy infringes Matson’s patent through the sale of Cowboy’s “portable drip containment devices.” Matson filed the case on September 30, 2013.

 

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on New Patent Cases Filed In Northern District of Texas