Federal Circuit’s Chief Judge Rader’s Speech

Posted on January 2, 2014 by Steven Callahan

On November 1, 2013, Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit gave a speech in Plano, Texas (at the Eastern District of Texas’ Bench/Bar Conference), on Patent Law and Litigation Abuse (the speech is available here). Among the many notable aspects of the speech is that studies concerning patents demonstrate that patents spur innovation, the patent system does not inhibit invention, and that skeptics of the patent system use the “litigation abuse problem” as a “weapon to erode confidence in the patent system.” Chief Judge Rader noted that several options exist for the Courts to control any abuses in patent litigation, including (i) summary judgment, (ii) fee reversal, and (iii) litigation expense reforms (such as model orders designed to reduce discovery costs and to narrow litigable issues at an early stage of the proceedings).

Posted in Developing Law | Comments Off on Federal Circuit’s Chief Judge Rader’s Speech

Magistrate Judge Ramirez Recommends Denial of Domino’s Motion to Transfer Venue

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On October 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Ramirez issued Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (available here) in the H-W Technology v. Domino’s Pizza case. Judge Ramirez recommended denying Domino’s motion to transfer venue, ruling that “[c]onsidering the interest of justice issue under § 1404(a), Defendants have failed to carry their burden of showing that the Eastern District of Michigan is ‘clearly more convenient’.” It appears as if Judge Ramirez’s decision was substantially influenced by other pending cases in the Northern District involving the same plaintiff and same patent-in-suit.

Posted in Magistrate Judge Ramirez | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Ramirez Recommends Denial of Domino’s Motion to Transfer Venue

Judge Solis Resolves Post-Trial Motions in Kaneka v. JBS

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On October 24, 2013, Judge Solis entered an Order (available here) resolving post-trial motions in Kaneka v. JBS, a patent infringement case in which the jury had found in favor of the plaintiff. Judge Solis determined, among other things, that the plaintiff was entitled to $400,000 in damages from the defendants, an accounting for additional damages from January 1, 2013 through the date of the Order, pre-judgment interest at the U.S. prime rate, compounded quarterly, and post-judgment interest at a rate of 0.14% per annum.

Posted in Judge Solis (Ret.) | Comments Off on Judge Solis Resolves Post-Trial Motions in Kaneka v. JBS

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