Northern District Of Texas Judges Offer Advice at “Patent Law: Best Practices As Seen From The Bench”

On May 1, 2013, Judge Lynn and Judge O’Connor participated in a roundtable discussion in Dallas: “Patent Law: Best Practices As Seen From The Bench.” The Texas Lawyer subsequently wrote an article on the roundtable (article available here). Here’s what we think the most notable aspects of the roundtable were:

Filings Up, But Not As Much As Expected: Judge Lynn stated that patent filings were up in the Northern District of Texas, but not as much as she expected. Judge Lynn noted that the Northern District of Texas’ patent rules are comparable to the Eastern District of Texas’ patent rules.

If You Want Judge O’Connor To Handle Your Patent Case, File It In the Wichita Falls Division: Judge O’Connor noted that, although he is not on the patent pilot project (which consists of three judges (Judges Lynn, Godbey, and Kinkeade) who hear all patent cases filed in the Dallas Division)), he handles the Wichita Falls Division. So, if a patent case is filed in Witchita Falls, he’ll handle it. He can also get the case to trial quickly in Wichita Falls.

Judge Lynn Decides Venue Matters Quickly: Judge Lynn indicated that she tries to decide venue disputes quickly.

PowerPoints: Judge Lynn stated that in a bench proceeding, “unless something is moving” (i.e., the slides are animated), she’d rather have the slides printed for her so that she can take notes on them. She does think PowerPoints are useful for juries. Try not to put too many words on the slide, as the jurors feel cheated when something is shown and then it taken away before they can review it. The same is true when blowing up a specific portion of a document. Many jurors have spoken to Judge Lynn after trial and have indicated that they feel as if something had been kept from them. Attorneys can explain that, for example, the item being shown on the screen is the only thing that relates to the particular issue in dispute.

Depositions At Trial: Judge Lynn said that jurors are “bored to tears” with depositions, regardless of whether the depositions are played on videotape. She also believes that depositions are overused. Quick deposition designations are much more effective. Don’t overdesignate testimony.

Tutorials: Judge Lynn finds technical tutorial in connection with the Markman hearing to be very helpful; she usually does live tutorials, but also likes them to be put on a disc so that she can watch it whenever she wants.

Local Counsel: Judge O’Connor thinks that it’s important to have local counsel who has familiarity the Northern District of Texas, the Dondi opinion, etc. Judge Lynn also thinks it’s useful to hire local counsel who is familiar with the Northern District of Texas’ procedures.

Posted in Judge Lynn, Judge O'Connor, Practice Tips | Comments Off on Northern District Of Texas Judges Offer Advice at “Patent Law: Best Practices As Seen From The Bench”

Coach Sues Manny’s Place For Trademark Infringement In Northern District Of Texas

On June 27, 2013, Coach hit Manny’s Place with a lawsuit (complaint available here) alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Coach alleges that Manny’s Place “traffic[s] in * * * counterfeit Coach wallets, handbags and sunglasses.”

Coach seeks, among other things, an injunction, its damages, and its attorney’s fees.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Coach Sues Manny’s Place For Trademark Infringement In Northern District Of Texas

Magistrate Judge Toliver Quashes Deposition Notice Directed to Former CEO of Good Technology

On July 1, 2013, Magistrate Judge Toliver issued an Order (available here) in Good Technology v. Fixmo that resolved Good’s motion seeking to quash the deposition notice of its former CEO (who is now Executive Chairman of Good’s Board of Directors). Judge Toliver held:

Without question, as Executive Chairman of the Board of the Plaintiff company, [the noticed individual] is an apex executive. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence that [he] possesses “firsthand and non-repetitive knowledge” regarding the relevant issues. See Computer Acceleration Corp., 2007 WL 7684605, at *1 (emphasis added). Specifically, while the emails attached to Defendants’ response demonstrate that [he] was involved in various meetings and strategy sessions, they do not show that [he] is the only person with knowledge of those events. Particularly germane to the Court’s determination that the requested relief is warranted is the fact that Defendants have not first deposed lower-ranking employees and [Good’s current CEO] before seeking [the Executive Chairman’s] deposition, as is the approach sanctioned by Rule 26(b)(1) and this Circuit’s precedent.

Judge Toliver indicated that “Defendants may petition the Court for leave to depose [the Executive Chairman] in the future, if, after taking the depositions of the other individuals proposed by Plaintiff, Defendants are unable to obtain the relevant and material information sought.”

Posted in Magistrate Judge Toliver | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Toliver Quashes Deposition Notice Directed to Former CEO of Good Technology

Judge Means to Take Senior Status

After almost 22 years on the Northern District of Texas bench, Judge Means will take senior status on July 3, 2013. Judge Means has handled 10,534 civil cases and has sentenced 2,300 criminal defendants. Thank you for your service Judge Means!

Posted in Judge Means | Comments Off on Judge Means to Take Senior Status

Dexas Sues Progressive For Trademark Infringement In Northern District of Texas

On June 26, 2013, Dexas, a leader in cutting boards, sued Progressive International Corp. (complaint available here) for trademark infringement. Dexas claims that Progressive infringes its CHOP & SCOOP trademark by Progressive’s “use of the mark ‘Chop and Scoop’ on a kitchen utensil that is designed to be a ‘quick way to cut and transfer food from cutting board to hot pan mess-free’.” Dexas asserts that Progressive has committed trademark infringement, unfair competition, and common law unfair competition.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Dexas Sues Progressive For Trademark Infringement In Northern District of Texas

Wi-Lan Sues RIM For Patent Infringement In Northern District of Texas

On June 25, 2013, Wi-Lan filed a patent infringement lawsuit (complaint available here) against RIM. Wi-Lan accuses RIM of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,184,661 and 8,274,991, which claim technology for the transmission of data flows and controlling a contention state, through the sale of RIM’s smartphones.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Wi-Lan Sues RIM For Patent Infringement In Northern District of Texas

Good Sportsman Hits Hunter’s Specialties With Copyright Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit

On June 13, 2013, Good Sportsman filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit (available here) against Hunter’s Specialties. Good Sportsman claims that Hunter’s Specialties had asserted that Hunter’s owns certain copyrights in sound recordings of animal game calls used by hunters and outdoor enthusiasts. Good Sportsman seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Good Sportsman Hits Hunter’s Specialties With Copyright Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit

Judge O’Connor Upholds Jury Verdict of $15 Million Against Samsung In Patent Infringement Case

On June 26, 2013, Judge O’Connor issued a thorough ruling (available here) in Summit 6 v. Samsung. A jury had earlier awarded $15 million Summit 6 in damages (writing “lump sum” on the verdict form) due to Samsung’s infringement of Summit 6’s patent.

Judge O’Connor held, among other things, that:

  • there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding of indirect infringement;
  • there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the patent-in-suit was not invalid;
  • the jury’s damages award was supported by sufficient evidence;
  • settlement agreements concerning the patent-in-suit were proper evidence;
  • the patent-in-suit was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct;
  • the jury’s $15 million award constituted a “lump sum” damages award such that the $15 million would compensate Summit 6 for the life of the patent (i.e., there cannot be any future damages awarded to Summit 6); and
  • the pre-judgment interest rate should be calculated using the state statutory rate of 5%, compounded annually.
Posted in Judge O'Connor, N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Judge O’Connor Upholds Jury Verdict of $15 Million Against Samsung In Patent Infringement Case

Supreme Court Issues Actavis Opinion

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion (available here) in FTC v. Actavis. The Court held that so-called “reverse payments” — i.e., payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers to generic drug manufacturers to keep the generic drug manufacturers’ products off of the market during the term of the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ patents — were not immune from antitrust attack. In other words, patent-related settlement agreements can sometimes violate the antitrust laws. The Court declined to find that reverse payment settlement agreements are presumptively unlawful.

Posted in Developing Law | Comments Off on Supreme Court Issues Actavis Opinion

Taylor Publishing Company Seeks Declaratory Judgment of No Patent Infringement In Case Against CTP Innovations

On June 13, 2013, Taylor Publishing filed a lawsuit (complaint available here) against CTP Innovations, after receiving a letter from CTP on April 19, 2013 asserting that Taylor Publishing’s technology infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,611,349 and 6,738,155, which claim certain printing technology.

Taylor Publishing is represented by John Jackson, of Jackson Walker L.L.P.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Taylor Publishing Company Seeks Declaratory Judgment of No Patent Infringement In Case Against CTP Innovations