Northern District of Texas Blog

On July 22, 2011, Magistrate Judge Kaplan issued an Order resolving a discovery dispute in Red River v. Verizon Services Corp. et al. (Order available here).  The patent infringement case was recently transferred from the Eastern District of Texas, and Red River had filed a motion to compel discovery from Qwest.  Specifically, Red River sought discovery on three of Qwest’s services, which are offered over the computer network Red River accuses of infringement.  Qwest argued that discovery should not be allowed because Red River had failed to properly chart the three services under Patent Rule 3-1.  Red River argued that the services were in the case (and hence discoverable), based on an earlier ruling from the Court in the Eastern District of Texas.

Judge Kaplan found that it was not necessary to determine whether Red River’s infringement contentions complied with Patent Rule 3-1, because, under the Northern District of Texas’ Patent Rules, discovery is not limited by the preliminary infringement contentions, but is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Judge Kaplan held that the scope of discovery in patent cases may include products or services that are “reasonably similar” to those accused in the infringement contentions.  Judge Kaplan concluded that the three services at issue were reasonably similar to the other services charted by Red River in its infringement contentions.  Accordingly, Judge Kaplan issued an Order compelling Qwest to provide discovery relating to the three services.

Red River is represented by Sam Baxter, Douglas Cawley, Christopher Bovenkamp, David Sochia, and Steven Callahan, all of McKool Smith, P.C.; Andrew Gorham, Charles Ainsworth, Robert Bunt, and Robert Parker, all of Parker, Bunt, & Ainsworth, P.C.; and D. Scott Hemingway, of Hemingway & Hansen LLP.

Qwest is represented by Brian Roche, Doyle Johnson, James Hultquist, Jennifer Yule DePriest, and John Bovich, all of Reed Smith LLP; and Bruce Sostek, of Thompson & Knight LLP.