Last week the Dallas Cowboys were sued over their stadium app in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. Before the day was out, U.S. District Judge Judge Mark Pittman had issued a show cause order why the case shouldn’t be transferred to the Dallas Division, and Chief U.S. District Judge Alia Moses issued an order finding the patent unenforceable as claiming unpatentable subject matter in a different case filed in Waco. That’s pretty much the judicial equivalent of starting out 70-10 in your first two games. The funny part was what happened next. The plaintiff’s lawyer had to tactfully explain to the court that, um, the “regular and established place of business” for this patent case is the Cowboys’ stadium, which “is” located in the Fort Worth Division, not the Dallas Division. Of course one wonders why the case wasn’t filed where the Cowboys are headquartered, which is, of course not in the Dallas Division either, but in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division at the Star in Frisco.
A pair of orders indicate that some WDTX judges may no longer admit attorneys PHV more than once – application for full admission is required.
Magistrate Judge Hightower passed on the plaintiff’s motion in support of its bill of costs following its $175 million verdict against Meta (fka Facebook) and recommended an award of $138,004.95 instead of the requested $229,042.35.
Judge Albright found five claim terms indefinite in this order + chart.
Judge Albright denied defendant Google’s motion to transfer. He initially found “many discrepancies and vague assertions that appear to be unreliable” in Google’s venue declaration, after which he held an in-person hearing to have the declarants testify. The court concluded that “based on that in person assessment of credibility, the court found the witnesses to be unreliable” for reasons specified in the opinion.
Judge Payne recommended denial of defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, finding that venue was proper based on the facts alleged for this stage of the lawsuit, noting that the defendant’s objections relied on disputed facts regarding the use of the accused products in the EDTX. The court also rejected the claim that a forum selection clause require the case to be brought in Washington, and that venue was “clearly more convenient” there.