I went through the orders and opinions on nondispositive issues in the Waco docket under Judge Albright tomorrow and wanted to go through what we have.
Courts costs isn’t an area you can develop much expertise in unless you go to trial a lot. Otherwise, the subject matter knowledge evaporates by the next time you need it, and you have to relearn it. That’s why orders like the attached are helpful, because they provide a current summary of the relevant caselaw, including the evergreen issue of which deposition-related costs are taxable.
The provisions contained in protective orders can come from many sources – court form orders, party agreements, and specific provisions based on courts’ rulings. The last category is few and far between in part because courts sometimes resolve a dispute in the text of the protective order itself and not in a separate order stating which side’s language it is adopting, and why. So unless you know the provision was disputed and how, you wouldn’t know that the language represents a decision by a court, as opposed to an agreement. This order provides an example of the latter and provides four more thumbtacks for you – four more court rulings on specific requested language in a protective order.
My youngest, Parker, is still a LEGO fiend – with his latest obsession being bespoke LEGO kits by Brickmania of World War II tanks, aircraft and figures. His collection came to mind today when I read the attached opinion seeking attorneys fees after a Marshall jury awarded a plaintiff 1/35 of the amounts it was seeking, and it petitioned the Court for an award of attorneys fees under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 38.001(8).
Every so often I schedule some time to look at the structure of the weblog to see if the information on it can be presented in a better way, and today I’d like to request any input from readers on categories.
At present, the weblog posts are categorized broadly as cases, commentary or court news. The first category is indexed by legal topic, division and judge. Those three classifications get top-level treatment, however, along with two other tags, however – Verdicts and Franklin Avenue, which collects all posts dealing with the Waco Division patent docket.
I’d like to solicit any input into these categories, and specifically, are there legal topics that aren’t included that you’d like to see? At present there are 35, and I tend to add one every few weeks as needed, but I want to cover the commonly searched legal terms.
I’d appreciate any input – just ping me at email@example.com.
This order deals with a motion to intervene brought by a manufacturer when its customer is sued for infringement for operating the manufacturer’s products. It covers both types of intervention (of right and permissive) before deciding that intervention was warranted under both.
This afternoon I’m working on my first sur-sur-sur-reply, which per some rule someplace simply must be written outside with the aid of some Shiner Bock. But while enjoying the sunshine I also enjoyed this opinion which provides some additional clarification on the always interesting topic of when infringement contentions can be amended. And, more importantly, what conduct by a defendant – which was doing so well just yesterday – kneecapped its ability to oppose such a motion, and what conduct by parties does Judge Gilstrap just really not like? You’ll want to take notes here.
Plaintiffs sometimes designate infringement contentions as confidential under a protective order. In this case, the defendant asked the Court to either dedesignate the contentions or allow its outside counsel who are not counsel of record access to them.
What we referred to in my time in Waco as the “Baylor Rule” was to ask forgiveness, not permission (this might have had something to do with adult beverages in law school, so “Baylor” really should have a footnote appended in this context). But in case there was ever any doubt, that rule doesn’t apply in federal court, may God have mercy on your soul if you assumed it did, and here’s the citation.
Patent risk insurer RPX has its report on 2018 out, and there are a number of interesting observations both about patent litigation in general and the EDTX in particular.