U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle of Tyler held unlawful seven regulations implemented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its related federal agencies under the “No Surprises Act” that the plaintiff medical providers argued were being used to delay medical billing payment, increase the cost of billing and ultimately compensate providers at below-market rates.
Just started the last semester of what’s been a very enjoyable and informative LL.M. at Baylor on litigation management. This semester I’ll be doing a deep dive into current trends in e-discovery using the Scheindlin & Capra text, as well as ethical issues in litigation management, expert witnesses, management of complex litigation, complex arbitration & negotiation, and small firm litigation management. And I’ll be wrapping up my research paper – actually two since we do both a short and a long version of our topic. Of course some of these topics are old friends – but one thing I’ve learned in this program is that there’s so much more to learn, even on subjects I’ve been dealing with for over 30 years now, some on a daily basis.
The defendant asked the court to either continue the trial setting or in the alternative, to reorder trials. Judge Gilstrap denied the motion and explains how this all works. And I can add some observations here as well.
A Waco jury in Judge Albright’s court rendered about a 5/6 defense verdict yesterday, finding none of the asserted claims infringed and two out of three invalid.
If I told you this is about default judgments, would you really be as interested? Well, you should, because this is a case dealing with copyright damages that you might find a use for.
Practitioners in Texas patent courts see orders granting or denying motions to permit alternative service all the time. What we see less often is the Federal Circuit weighing in on a request by an alternatively-served defendant for mandamus relief from such a motion. Here the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Albright’s decision, providing some useful guidance on what’s permissible and the standard for review (with an Easter egg on mandamus standards).
Some things you expect to see. Others might be a bit of a surprise. This judgment might have one of those things for you.
Slightly weird facts here regarding where the relevant documents were. The plaintiff’s documents were in Waco, but had been moved there recently from California. The defendant was seeking a transfer to Austin, but didn’t identify any evidence, electronic or physical, there.
Judge Albright granted the motion ordering the defendant’s noninfringement expert to answer the plaintiff’s questions regarding his compensation, overruling his claim of “company confidentiality.” However redactions in the order mean that the exact contours of the issue and the ruling may not be clear.
Following his recent order deeming established the sales figures in certain third-party reports, the only issue remaining was whether the plaintiff’s reasonable royalty rates included a proper apportionment analysis. Judge Payne concluded that they did.