Month: July 2023

Claims Stayed Under Customer Suit Exception      

msmithStays, TEXIPLAWBLOG, WDTX, WDTX Cases

Judge Albright concluded that (1) DoDots’ claims of infringement against the Defendants hinge on their sale of a manufacturer’s products; (2) the Defendants have agreed to be bound by the outcomes of the claims against the manufacturer; and (3) the manufacturer is the only source of the accused products.  The court stayed the claims, except for the limited purpose of allowing discovery against the defendants, pending resolution of the case against the manufacturer.

Read more

Motion for Sanctions Granted

msmithCopyrights and Trademarks, NDTX, Sanctions, TEXIPLAWBLOG

The court found that a website owned by the defendant contained multiple violations of the court’s active order in this trademark case.  It rejected the defendant’s assertion that the website was a “test” website left up accidentally excused its presence.  The sanction was that the defendant would bear the full cost of an upcoming mediation, as well as reasonable attorneys fees associated with the filing of the motion and the discovery of the violation.

Read more

Motions For Summary Judgment Denied

msmithDamages, EDTEXWEBLOG, EDTX IP, Judge Roy S. Payne (USMJ), Marshall, Summary Judgment, TEXIPLAWBLOG

Not as exciting as seeing Tiger 131 in the flesh at “Tankfest” in Bovington last month was Judge Payne’s denial of all three motions for summary judgment filed by the parties in this case.  They consisted of a motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement, a motion for summary judgment of no pre-suit damages, and a motion by the plaintiff for partial summary judgment that the defendant practiced certain limitations of the patents.

Read more

Sanctions for Discovery Misconduct

msmithEDTEXWEBLOG, EDTX IP, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, Sanctions, TEXIPLAWBLOG, Tyler

Judge Schroeder ordered defendant McDonald’s counsel to pay reasonable costs and fees in the amount of $79,584.11 to the plaintiff after McDonald’s failed to comply with a number of the court’s orders compelling discovery responses.  But although the court found that McDonald’s discovery compliance has been “dilatory and incomplete”, that did not mean that the relief sought by the plaintiff was found by the court to be appropriate.

Read more