Magistrate Judge Kaplan to Step Down on August 31

We have it on good authority that Magistrate Judge Kaplan will step down from his position on August 31, 2012.  Judge Kaplan has a long history of judicial service, and we wish him well with his future endeavors.

Posted in Magistrate Judge Kaplan (Ret.), N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Kaplan to Step Down on August 31

Judge Furgeson To Head University of North Texas Dallas College of the Law

Judge Furgeson of the Northern District of Texas has been selected to become Dean of the University of North Texas Dallas College of the Law.  According to the law.com article (available here), Judge Furgeson will remain on the bench for the next fifteen months, and then assume his responsibilities as dean.  The first law school class appears set to matriculate in 2014.

Congratulations to Judge Furgeson.

Posted in Judge Furgeson (Ret.), N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Judge Furgeson To Head University of North Texas Dallas College of the Law

Five Practice Tips For the New Year

Here are five practice tips that may be of use in the New Year:

  1. When drafting documents, electronically highlight any areas that need to be filled in later.  Don’t just leave them blank with a “______.”  We’ve seen several filings with Courts or discovery responses that have “______” in them and it’s because nobody proofread the “final” document.  It’s much less likely that someone will file or serve a document with highlights in it because even a quick review of the document shows that the document is not final.
  2. Don’t only send important documents (e.g., letters) to opposing counsel by e-mail.  If the document is important, also send it by fax, FedEx/UPS, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested.  You’ll want to be able to prove that opposing counsel received it.  Also, materials cannot be served by e-mail under the Federal Rules (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E)) unless opposing counsel consented in writing to e-mail service.
  3. When electronically filing documents with the Court or serving discovery responses on opposing counsel, etc., print the document to pdf.  Don’t print out the document to hard copy and then scan it.  Printing to pdf, instead of printing out a hard copy of the document and then scanning it, has several advantages, including that the printed-to-pdf document (i) looks cleaner, (ii) takes up less space (some scans can take up to 10MB or more of space), and (iii) is text searchable.
  4. Don’t “reply all” to an e-mail without making sure everyone who will be receiving your response is an intended recipient.  We’ve seen opposing counsel in a number of occasions hit “reply” and send us e-mails that were meant for their internal teams.
  5. Spend the 10 minutes it takes to learn how to scan (or photocopy) a document and send a fax.  There’s a good chance that your support staff won’t always be around when you need them.
Posted in Practice Tips | Comments Off on Five Practice Tips For the New Year

Does the Northern District of Texas have Patent Rules?

Yes.  Although not found in the Northern District of Texas’ Local Rules, the Northern District of Texas does have a set of patent rules.  They are found in Amended Miscellaneous Order No. 62, which is located here.

Posted in FAQs, Local Rules | Comments Off on Does the Northern District of Texas have Patent Rules?

Mick Haig’s Counsel Sanctioned by Judge Godbey

On September 9, 2011, Judge Godbey sanctioned the plaintiff’s counsel in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670.  Specifically, Judge Godbey sanctioned the plaintiff’s counsel $10,000 for issuing subpoenas to ISPs in violation of a Court Order.  Judge Godbey also ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to pay the opposing counsel’s attorney’s fees and expenses.  Opposing counsel has requested $22,000.  The sanctioned counsel has appealed Judge Godbey’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  A copy of Judge Godbey’s decision is here.

Posted in Judge Godbey (Chief Judge), Sanctions | Comments Off on Mick Haig’s Counsel Sanctioned by Judge Godbey

Do I Get An Extra 3 Days to Respond to a Motion Filed Electronically in the Northern District of Texas?

No.  Under Local Rule 7.1(e), “[a] response and brief to an opposed motion must be filed within 21 days from the date the motion is filed.”  (Reply briefs may generally be filed “within 14 days from the date the response is filed.”  See L.R. 7.1(f).)  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) states that, “[w]hen a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F) [involving methods of service, including service by electronic means], 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).”  Because the 3 day extension only potentially applies to deadlines calculated based on the “service” of papers, and the deadlines for briefing in the Northern District are calculated based on the date a motion (or response) is “filed,” an extra 3 days is not added onto the response (or reply) deadline.

Posted in FAQs | Comments Off on Do I Get An Extra 3 Days to Respond to a Motion Filed Electronically in the Northern District of Texas?

Lhoist Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas

On September 1, 2011, Lhoist North America, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas (copy of complaint available here).  Lhoist claims that Defendants Construction Material Recycling Inc. and Lyndon Jones Construction, Inc. infringe Lhoist’s United States Patent No. 5,544, 971.  The ’971 patent claims a method for recycling asphalt pavement.

The case has been assigned to Judge McBryde, but, because it was filed on September 1, 2011, it will be reassigned to either Judge Lynn, Judge Godbey, or Judge Kinkeade in accordance with the Patent Pilot Project.

Lhoist is represented by Richard Schwartz and Thomas Harkins, Jr., both of Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz, PLLC.

Posted in Judge Godbey (Chief Judge), Judge Kinkeade, Judge Lynn, Judge Means, New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Lhoist Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas

Mark Cuban Files Motion to Compel Against the SEC

On August 29, 2011, Mark Cuban filed a motion to compel (available here) requesting that the Court order the SEC to provide several categories of documents that, according to Mr. Cuban, have been improperly withheld.  Mr. Cuban states that, “[t]he SEC’s discovery strategy in this case has become clear: unless the Court intervenes, the SEC will produce only non-privileged material in what it refers to as its ‘investigative file’ and nothing else.”  The motion contains a good discussion of the Federal Rules’ broad discovery regime, the requirements concerning privilege logs, the appropriateness of so-called “boiler plate” objections, and the work product doctrine.

In the lawsuit, the SEC alleges that Mr. Cuban’s activities regarding the sale of Mamma.com stock violated certain securities laws.

Mr. Cuban is represented by Lyle Roberts, Ralph Ferrara, and George Anhang, all of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP; Stephen Best and Brian Nysenbaum, both of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP; Leslie Maria, of White & Case LLP; and Thomas Melsheimer and Steven Stodghill, both of Fish & Richardson P.C.

The case is before Chief Judge Fitzwater.

Posted in Judge Fitzwater | Comments Off on Mark Cuban Files Motion to Compel Against the SEC

Alcon Pharmaceuticals Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apotex in the Northern District of Texas

On August 25, 2011, Alcon Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit (complaint available here) relating to Apotex’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Patanase nasal spray.  Alcon asserts that Apotex’s spray infringes United States Patent No. 7,977,376, which claims, among other things, a topically administrable, aqueous, nasal spray solution.

The case has been assigned to Judge Means.

Alcon is represented by Marshall Searcy, Jr. and Michael Anderson, both of Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP; and Bruce Genderson, Adam Perlman, Thomas Selby, Daniel Shanahan, Shelley Webb, Christopher Mandernach, and Sara Kaiser, all of Williams & Connolly LLP.

Posted in Judge Means, New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Alcon Pharmaceuticals Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Apotex in the Northern District of Texas

Hardware Resources Files Declaratory Judgment Patent Lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas

On August 25, 2011, Hardware Resources filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against ATC Hardware Systems in the Northern District of Texas (copy of complaint available here).  Hardware Resources seeks a declaratory judgment that United States Patent No. 7,458,651 is invalid and not infringed by Hardware Resources.  The patent-in-suit, according to Hardware Resources, “describes a mechanism used to keep a drawer closed.”

Hardware Resources notes that ATC “has made repeated written allegations that Hardware Resources has infringed and continues to infringe the ’651 Patent by making and selling” drawer slides, and has also “demanded payment of license fees and royalties from Hardware Resources in order to avoid litigation for infringement of the ’651 Patent.”

The case is before Judge Solis.

Hardware Resources is represented by George Schultz and Nicole Marsh, both of Schultz & Associates, P.C.

Posted in Judge Solis (Ret.), New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Hardware Resources Files Declaratory Judgment Patent Lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas