Judge Gilliland denied plaintiff Align Technology’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, holding that Align failed to show the good cause required by Rule 16(b) to amend its pleadings nearly four months after the amendment deadline. The Court found that the proposed amendment would inject a new statutory infringement theory late in the case and would substantially prejudice the defendants.
Judge Ezra granted the plaintiff’s renewed motion to lift a stay that had been in place for more than three years, holding that the principal reason for the stay—the pending Federal Circuit review of PTAB decisions involving the asserted patents—had been resolved. The Court rejected Tesla’s request to continue the stay while additional PTAB proceedings and related IPRs remained pending. This content is restricted to subscribers
Magistrate Judge Bill Davis denied the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show good cause for obtaining medical records and identifying unknown defendants before the ordinary FRCP 26 discovery process. In so doing the court discussed the different analytical approaches to pre-26(f) discovery and opted to apply the more lenient “good cause” standard. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs’ federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were likely subject to dismissal because none of the defendants qualified as state actors, making it likely the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Judge Barker issued an opinion explaining his reasons for adding, in addition to the standard Fifth Circuit jury instructions, a caveat in the instructions to the jury in this case to the effect that the owners joint decisions on behalf of the company was not enough to make them joint employers of the company’s employees. The issue was mooted by the jury’s finding that there was no FLSA violation, thus the individual liability issue was never reached. But the opinion went much further than simply explaining the additional instruction, instead questioning the doctrinal foundation for applying the FLSA’s joint-employer framework to corporate officers and owners at all, and seeking appellate clarification that the FLSA does not displace states’ laws on the personal liability of corporate officers and owners for corporate obligations. In other words, if a state sets a higher standard for the personal liability of corporate officers or owners (the 2025 Texas legislative changes which codified the “business judgment” rule, raised pleading burdens, and allowed Texas corporations to eliminate corporate officers’ liability in some cases come to mind) – the FLSA does not provide a cause of action.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict for the plaintiff last week in a patent case dealing with battery technology between two South Korean companies. The jury found all seven claims across five patents willfully infringed,and that none of the claims have been proven invalid by clear and convincing evidence. The jury set damages at $3,286,683.
Following a jury trial which found willful infringement of the design patent at issue Judge Pitman conducted a bench trial on damages and awarded $12,969,110. He also granted a permanent injunction after finding that the relevant “article of manufacture” under 35 U.S.C. § 289 was the defendants’ entire infringing electric motorcycle rather than individual components, and that the plaintiff had satisfied all four eBay factors for permanent injunctive relief. This content is restricted to subscribers
Judge Robert Pitman granted the Defendants’ motion to transfer this copyright and trademark infringement case from the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas to the District of Nevada. The court held that the contractually valid forum selection clause within the parties’ 2015 merchandising agreement survived the contract’s termination and encompassed the current intellectual property disputes. He also concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” or public-interest factors sufficient to overcome the enforcement of that clause, noting that “[t]his Court is acutely aware of the particularly heavy civil caseload here in the Austin Division—the undersigned has over 700 active civil cases and is one of only four active federal district judges in the Division.” This content is restricted to subscribers
Interested in the latest on alternative service? This is the case for you. Judge Jordan granted a motion for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3), holding that a fifteen-month delay in attempting Hague Convention service on a French defendant justified alternative service by email, service on prior U.S. counsel, and service through the defendant’s U.S. subsidiary. This content is restricted to subscribers
Following a jury verdict of willful patent infringement which awarded damages in the form of a reasonable royalty in the amount of $445 million, the plaintiff sought an injunction permanently enjoining defendant Samsung from further infringement of one of the four patents in suit. Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, specifically rejecting the DOJ and USPTO’s position that ongoing infringement is irreparable harm as a matter of law as inconsistent with eBay. Nonetheless he wrote that “[t]o differentiate between patent owners based on (non)use would be to create a lower second class of patent ownership, implying different and lesser rights. This distinction is not supported by the text of any statute, any decision of the Supreme Court, or any practice by the USPTO. The USPTO does not issue patents with a gold seal if the holder practices the patents, but issues patents with only a silver seal when they do not.” (Ed. note: are silver seals provided by the CAFC? Discuss among yourselves) Nonetheless he actually did find that both irreparable harm and that monetary damages were not adequate were shown in this case, but nonetheless denied the motion because the plaintiff did not satisfy the other two factors – balance of hardships and and public interest.
Judge Payne granted defendant Christus Health’s motions for attorneys’ fees and costs, holding that the patent case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because plaintiff Decapolis pursued meritless patent claims and engaged in vexatious litigation conduct. The court ordered Decapolis to pay $643,248.03 in attorneys’ fees and $393.25 in costs. This content is restricted to subscribers