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 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.
You have really got to work hard to achieve a result this bad. On the eve of trial in the WDTX, Judge Albright dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because the plaintiff had lost its patents via a turnover order after it was sanctioned in the EDTX and didn’t pay those sanctions, nor did it post a supersedeas bond while appealing them, thus making them vulnerable to the turnover order. (For clarification, the EDTX case being referenced is not the underlying sanctions order against this attorney I posted on a few weeks ago. Nor is it the one from the NDTX I also posted on recently, nor the one from D. Del. – both also against the same attorney. As I said, you have to work hard to get this result.
Judge Albright denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for new trial, and granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for supplemental damages, ongoing royalty and enhancement of postverdict damages. The 49 page opinion is a compendium of what did, didn’t, and should and shouldn’t have happened at trial.
One of the Non-Albright Waco patent cases finally has an order! Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the plaintiff’s first two motions for venue discovery, noting that the first motion contain no certificate of conference, and the second only stated that plaintiff’s counsel attempted to confer with opposing counsel late in the day but received no response. Finding that “Plaintiff’s eleventh-hour communication does not amount to a good-faith attempt to resolve the matter” and thus did not comply with the relevant local rule,” Judge Cardone denied the motion, but without prejudice to the plaintiff’s ability to refile compliance with the local rules, and detailed what that requires.
Judge Albright denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s direct infringement and pre-suit indirect and post-suit willful infringement claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the pre-suit willful infringement claims, as well as the defendant’s motion challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s pleadings that the defendant makes/sells/etc. the accused devices in the United States, as well as the motion directed to the plaintiff’s joint infringement and alter ego theories, but with leave to amend.
Judge Pitman granted the motion, but only as to the plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim.
The court concluded that some, but not all, of the correspondence between the party and the agency was protectable as attorney work product and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that there was a subject matter waiver under the facts of the case.
Judge Yeakel granted the motion, finding that all three factors weighed in favor of a stay.