I noticed today that, at least in the patent case in question (and I assume in all of his discovery orders) Judge Ward of the Marshall and Texarkana Divisions of the Eastern District modified his previous order exempting practitioners from the courtesy copy requirement contained in Local Rule CV-5(a)(9). The new language reads: "ANY FILINGS IN EXCESS OF TWENTY (20) PAGES, COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE A COURTESY COPY TO CHAMBERS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE DATE OF FILING". (Emphasis in court's order). I have not seen any orders in pending cases adding this requirement (yet) but it perhaps gives a good indication of when Judge Ward prefers to receive courtesy copies of filings.
As previously, posted, in Judge Folsom's court practitioners now only need to send a paper courtesy copy if the filing exceeds ten pages, including attachments, and in Judge Davis' court practitioners are exempted from the courtesy copies requirement entirely (although there are requirementsthat apply to courtesy copies of documents that are filed under seal).
Intellectual Property Litigation: What Civil Litigators Need to Know is a paper I just submitted for the upcoming State Bar of Texas Litigation Update seminar, to be held in San Antonio on January 14-15, 2005 (and by video in Dallas on March 3-4, 2005 and New Orleans on April 7-8, 2005).
The paper is essentially an overview of the major steps in patent litigation (and to a lesser extent, copyright law), with emphasis on the steps that civil litigators unfamiliar with this area of the law need to be aware of. Check back in mid-January for my PowerPoint presentation for the seminar, which should be more entertaining - it is expected to include "top Ten" lists of things to say and not to say to patent lawyers.
Chappell v. Dretke, 2004 WL 2826831 (E.D.Tex. Dec 02, 2004) (NO. CIV.A. 4:04CV334) Judge: Bush, M.J. Division: Sherman Holding: Report and Recommendation WITHDRAWN COMMENTS: This is a prisoner case which Judge Bush had previously recommended by dismissed based on limitations. After reviewing the objections filed to the report, Judge Bush concluded that it was not clear that limitations barred the claim, and therefore the report was withdrawn.
In a decision that may be of interest to patent practitioners, Judge Leonard Davis, who handles part of the Tyler and Marshall dockets of the Eastern District, recently modified the language regarding the deadline to amend pleadings in patent cases to reference Patent Rule 3-7. The new provision reads:
Amended Pleadings (pre-claim construction) due from all parties. It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after the deadline. However, if the amendment would affect preliminary infringement contentions or preliminary invalidity contentions, a motion must be made pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7 irrespective of whether the amendment is made prior to this deadline. (Emphasis added).
Judge Ward and Judge Clark also use the Patent Local Rules. Their corresponding provisions are as follows:
Amend Pleadings. (It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings except to the extent the amendment seeks to add a new patent in suit. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after (the specified date). (Emphasis added).
Plaintiff’s Final Amended Pleadings. (It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings except to the extent the amendment seeks to add a new patent in suit. (Emphasis added).