Judge Alan Albright’s Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases was recently amended to change some of the procedures and provide guidance on the Court’s preference on others. I’ve included the relevant language below with deleted material stricken thru and added information bolded. Subscribers, click on through – nonsubscribers, it’s just 2,000 words, and what else were you going to do on a Friday night anyway?
Ever run into that situation where a motion to dismiss is followed by an amended complaint and you’re left scratching your head trying to figure out where that leaves you procedurally? Well wonder no more, because this recent opinion collects the cases and explains the pleadings version of rock, paper, scissors.
I’m over the river in Oklahoma today at the EDTX bench bar planning meeting, but that’s no excuse not to post on another detailed order from Franklin Avenue – Judge Albright’s third on patentable subject matter.
Congratulations are in order to EDTX attorneys Andy Tindel and Jennifer Doan, who successfully tried new Judge Michael Truncale’s first trial four years before he was confirmed. They were representing Wyatt Earp in a wrongful death action brought by the Estate of Tom McLaury, which was represented by a couple of carpetbag lawyers from Dallas (okay, Mike Lynn and Leon Carter, both of whom did a fine job). Which just underscores why you should come to the EDTX bench bar meetings. We have some fun, and sometimes interesting stuff happens.
It’s a beautiful day in Plano as the “Posse” reconvenes to begin the planning process for this fall’s EDTX bench/bar meeting. The meetings (such as they are) began night before last, continued through a morning of fishing on Lake Texoma yesterday, and through the afternoon and evening at Clyde Siebman’s ranch which, inexplicably, is still in Oklahoma. We got an initial briefing from Clyde about which judges and prominent speakers are confirmed, and discussed potential panels. Those discussions will continue today with the larger group with additional input from Chief Judge Gilstrap. These are always fun meetings as we compare notes on what’s happening in the district, and see what topics the attendees would be most interested in.
The substance of the motion deals with when a party’s prior contentions and expert reports dealing with the same patents should be produced, but the order comes with a tasty procedural holding dealing with discovery motion practice as well.
Earlier this morning the U.S. Senate confirmed Beaumont attorney Michael Truncale to the EDTX bench to fill the vacancy created last year by the taking of senior status by Judge Ron Clark. Michael will be the second member of the EDTX judiciary whose mother was a Marshall girl.
The issue on this motion was whether the plaintiff could go forward with claims of willful infringement. The holding granted the motion, but only on one side of the filing date.
My wife and I organize our visits to New Orleans around food – specifically bread pudding. If time permits, we’ll hit Palace Cafe for white chocolate bread pudding, Commander’s Palace (where we were engaged, by the way) for the bread pudding souffle, and BonTon for, um, whiskey garnished with a little bread pudding. All good, but different. Motions are like that too. In the last month I’ve posted on Twiqbal decisions by Judges Payne, Mazzant and Albright, and a few weeks earlier, Judge Kernodle. Today I have the same analysis but with its own unique flavor (perhaps honey?) from Judge Gilstrap.
Plaintiff moved to compel a narrative response to an interrogatory in a patent case pending before Judge Kernodle in Tyler. The subject matter was revenues and profits, and the order provides an example of when an answer can rely on FRCP 33(d), and when further information is required to be provided.
