Join us this upcoming Tuesday, March 28 at 3:00 p.m. Central, Texas time, for another B-CLE live webcast about what is going on in IP cases in Texas federal courts. Wayne Stacy and I will go over the key cases I have selected from the past month to discuss. In this episode, we discuss some recent evidence cases that we should all be watching, including cases on expert report limitations, contention interrogatories, deposition scheduling, and privilege waiver. We also discuss the most recent venue cases and how In re Planned Parenthood is impacting Texas venue decisions. Registration and attendance is free, and CLE credit is available, as always – sign up here.
We all need to be alert to the cyber scams going around, and here’s a new one. If you are attempting to subscribe or renew your subscription – to this blog or anything else – and you reach a page that has payment in Euros – it’s likely a scam (it definitely is for the blog – like most Texas businesses we are configured to accept payment only in dollars). Contact me at email@example.com and I’ll walk you through the correct process for renewing. If you’re already set up for automatic renewal, you don’t have to worry about this.
U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel will leave the Western District of Texas bench on May 1, 2023, after nearly 20 years of service. Judge Yeakel currently handles half of the Austin Division docket, so his departure will leave a substantial hole. There are already four district court vacancies in Texas and two more anticipated after Judge Yeakel, and none have nominees, so when the docket is reallocated those cases will go to a judge currently serving.
Judge Pittman granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s patent misuse counterclaim for failure to state a claim since the alleged conduct – bad faith patent assertion against a competitor – isn’t patent misuse.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motion for new trial in this case in which the Marshall jury awarded the plaintiff a one-time lump sum of $4.3 million as a reasonable royalty on September 16, 2022.
Judge Albright denied the motion, noting that the relevant evidence was either located in the WDTX or remotely accessible in the WDTX, with none only accessible in the CDCA, and therefore under In re Planned Parenthood, the sources of proof factor was neutral. As was the court congestion factor under In re Google. In fact the only factor which wasn’t neutral was the presence of other litigation, which the court found weighed strongly against transfer – accordingly the CDCA was not show to be a clearly more convenient forum.
Judge Biery granted the motion by defendant Google to dismiss the plaintiff’s case, finding the infringement claim not plausible – and noting a recent NDCA opinion finding the same thing. The Court also denied leave to amend.