In New Orleans (somehow) this morning to speak on Post-Judgment Motions for the TexasBarCLE Advanced Civil Trial seminar. Since everything in Texas east of Houston is frozen (power’s out in Austin and airports are closed in Dallas and Austin) most of the speakers couldn’t make it as scheduled, so the schedule was revised and my presentation is pushed up an hour. But there are beignets and chicory coffee, they are giving me half an hour to talk on a trial procedure topic, and there’s a WW II museum just down the street so my day really couldn’t get better.
Up to full speed this morning in Day 1 listening to Mark Lemley update us all on developments in patent law. We’ve already covered proposed patent legislation and SEPS and new standards. PTO leadership discussion is next, and our panel (with Aaron Nathan subbing for an ill partner) is second to last this afternoon. Tomorrow we break into litigation and prosecution tracks. Great, great seminar.
Looking forward to our panel this afternoon. Becca and I had a great time preparing the “supplemental materials” paper below which has the cases and issues discussed, including copies of the key cases and relevant graphs and tables. And it gave us a chance to show off our picture from the EDTX bench/bar planning meeting this summer.
I am looking forward to my panel with Matt Powers of Tensegrity and Sarah Guske of Baker Botts, this morning at the 23rd Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute in Palo Alto on the subject of the newest developments in selecting, preserving, and challenging a court. Attached below are the supplemental materials on this topic for attendees and readers that Becca Skupin and I prepared. If you have any questions, ping us at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com . 2022-APLI-Jurisdiction-and-Venue-Final
While I was in trial last week Texas Lawyer published the second article of a 4-part series I co-authored with Erick S. Robinson and Karl Rupp. ALM subscribers can access the article here.
Part 1 of this series identified two reasons for the large number of Federal Circuit opinions granting mandamuses reversing Western District of Texas Judge Alan D Albright’s rulings denying patent defendant motions to transfer venue. The article referenced the Federal Circuit’s well-documented tendency to add requirements to statutes, and the panel-specific nature of many Federal Circuit decisions, pinpointing that while 13 judges were eligible to sit on the mandamus panels, only four have overwhelmingly granted the petitions. But those four judges—along with Judge Taranto—sit on a disproportionate number of panels, and have designated for publication several of the opinions in their cases.
This article examines this second aspect of the 2020 – 2021 opinions in more detail, including reasons why more petitions for mandamus review of venue decisions make their way to certain judges, and especially those filed by certain types of defendants.
I am working with Peter Menell, Allison Schmitt and Roman Swoopes on a panel presentation as part of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology’s new “IP+Tech month” program – a year in review program with panels presenting on over 30 IP & tech topics during May.
BCLT reports that “[t]hese are not your typical CLE courses. They are highly-focused sessions that are curated through Berkeley Law. Our instructors and faculty are the cornerstone of this program and, with over 60 tech and IP-focused instructors, that’s a lot of expertise.”
On Monday we’ll be presenting on the subject of Patent Case Management, with yours truly herding the Texas-specific developments while Allison and Roman cover Delaware and California, respectively. After that Professor Menell will join us for a moderated roundtable on the topic.
So we have something other than a folder of cases for attendees, I took the Texas-specific developments and put them into a separate document with the relevant narrative enhanced with photos and watercolors of Texas courthouses so it looks nice. It’s attached below. Readers will recognize it as a subset of some of the more important cases and developments in Texas’ patent courts over the past year. I had initially intended it to be more comprehensive, but in the end decided to just mirror what I plan on talking about as part of the panel.
While I was in trial last week ALM published the first article of a 4-part series I co-authored with Erick S. Robinson, partner and co-chair of IP in the Houston and Austin offices of Spencer Fane LLP; and Karl Rupp who practices with Sorey & Gilliland in Longview, Texas. ALM subscribers can access the article here. (Yes, I know they need a shave – I’m working on it).