A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s temporary courtroom in the historic county courthouse returned a verdict in favor of a Kilgore mail carrier yesterday in a civil rights employment case, determining that she had been fired for reporting that a black supervisor was mistreating the white female employees. The trial began on Wednesday and finished yesterday. The jury awarded $250,000 in damages for mental and emotional distress. As expected, that’s two down, with the antitrust case before Judge Schroeder resuming next week.
The Marshall cases in trial before juries this week are actually an antitrust, an employment, and a patent case. The patent case before Judge Bryson came back with a verdict for the plaintiff of $20 million Friday evening, breaking the 3-3 tie we’ve had thus far this year in patent verdicts. Congratulations to the plaintiff’s local counsel, and … well defendant didn’t have any local counsel I can send out sympathies to. The case is one that I’ve posted on a couple of times, involving
Defendants in a patent case filed an Emergency Motion to Secure Trial Testimony of Unavailable Witness seeking leave to take a deposition in Hong Kong of a single witness. The Court granted the motion, with some caveats and observations.
Although most 101 defenses are raised via motions to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a few are brought under 12(c), and more than a few are either filed in or converted to the context of summary judgment. But this case raises an interesting twist with the defendant seeking dismissal on 12(b)(6) grounds and the plaintiff seeking summary judgment that the 101 defense is without merit. So let’s see how that worked out for them.
Tuesday I’m testifying before the Texas Legislature which believes that FRCP 12(b) motions are just the cat’s meow for deep-sixing cases early on, and Friday I’m posting a good example of why that’s not necessarily the case. This case arises out of a ANDA application filed by the Defendant to
Ever had that situation where you think you have a settlement, but the other side doesn’t, or vice versa? I mean in the absence of horned and breastplated opera singers, of course. That was the situation presented in this case, where the parties in a patent infringement case appeared to have settled their dispute, but the final settlement agreement fell through when Defendants learned that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had instituted inter partes review (IPR) of one of the asserted patents. The Court found that
Yesterday I posted on a recent decision by Judge Gilstrap finding “exceptional case” status. In that opinion, the Court addressed the effect of mistakes by lawyers, parties or principals. Earlier this morning, Judge Gilstrap issued a “show cause” order as a result of what he said is “most charitably” described as an attorney’s “systematic carelessness” requiring the attorney to appear to show cause why his conduct does not violate Rule 11(b), and why appropriate sanctions under that rule should not be imposed. As set forth below, the party is a familiar one, although in a different context.
Plaintiff sought to compel the defendants to produce information regarding their post-incident investigation. Judge Crone granted the motion in part, as set forth below, and provides a useful analysis of some not often encountered exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions) to the attorney work product doctrine dealing with witness statements.
I was working on an update on the Iris Connex case (you remember – noninfringement dismissal after expedited claim construction, $507,000 in sanctions against plaintiff and nonparty) when I saw Dennis Crouch’s summary this morning of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA (“Cooler Master”) (Fed. Cir. 2017) focused on the issue on enjoining a nonparty.
In light of that case, I realized that the time might be right for a detailed post on the issue of the new EDTX-created mechanism for nonparty liability, which I’ll refer to as a the “Iris Connex” test.
The significance of this new test appears to be starting to seep in – I just read an analysis of it in an article by some TBL partners that correctly noted it as evidence that “courts on the front lines of patent litigation, and particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, are more adept at addressing potential systemic abuses than reform-minded politicians.” 23 No. 25 Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property 1. The specific proposals they were addressing were those in recent patent reform bills that sought to increase transparency in NPE cases to address exactly the abuses that the Court found in this case, but which ran into trouble trying to craft specific measures that didn’t cause other problems. When faced with a “shell corporation” scheme to elude liability under Section 285, the article wrote that “the Eastern District of Texas created a solution – and set an example for other courts and patent litigants to follow.” The article opines, and I think correctly so, that this may be another example of the courts developing an effective solution to a problems using existing tools before Congress legislates one.
But first, we need some background facts on the Iris Connex case. After all, it is the one Judge Gilstrap described as “the clearest example of an exceptional case to yet come before the undersigned. Simply put, if this case is not an exceptional case, then there are none.”
The next 4,296 words are my attempt to summarize the case, its resolution, and its significance. Pour yourself a cup of coffee, pull up a seat, and let’s get exceptional.
Yes, Mr. “Twin Peaks” Giant, it is happening again. Another 101 motion has been granted … in part. And even by the same judge (and almost the same day). In this case,