Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Claims construction opinion

MYMAIL, LTD. v. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40716 (E.D. Tex. June 3, 2005)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Division: Tyler
Holding: Claims construction opinion
COMMENTS:
Yesterday I updated the post on the summary judgment of noninfringement in this case based on the Court's claims construction ruling to include the Lexis cite (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40687).  Today Lexis reported last June's claims construction opinion, so here's the cite to that as well.

Patent Cases tab relocated

Since there has been a lot of interest lately in patent cases from the Eastern District, I renamed the "Patent Cases" tab to the right "All Patent Cases" so it will show up first.  The patent cases are still indexed under the individual judge - they are just also all collected here.

Motion to Transfer Patent Case Based on First To File Rule Denied

Mediatek, Inc. v. Sanyo Elec., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7393 (Feb. 17, 2006)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Division: Tyler
Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue DENIED; Motion to Join Third Party Counterclaim Defendants DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Cross Motion to Sever and Transfer GRANTED
COMMENTS:
This is a patent case.  Defendant Sanyo filed against Mestek and other defendants in April of 2005 in California - Plaintiff Mediatek filed in August in Texas against Sanyo.   Sanyo now asked the Court to transfer this action to California for consolidation with the California action under the first-to-file rule arguing the actions are substantially similar. Mediatek argued the technology involved in the two cases is distinct such that the first-to-file rule is inapplicable.  Alternatively, Sanyo moved the Court to join the ASUS entities (who were defendants in the California action) as third-party counterclaim defendants.  In response to Sanyo's joinder motion, Mediatek moved under FRCP 21 to sever Sanyo's counterclaims and claims against the ASUS entities relating to Sanyo's Texas patents and to transfer the severed claims to the Central District of California for consolidation  with the California action.
Judge Davis noted that "[t]he primary dispute between the parties is a pragmatic one -- where this case would most efficiently be litigated. . . . . Resolution of the dispute turns on the similarity of the technology between the patents-in-suit in California and the patents-in-suit in Texas." Although  Sanyo "eagerly cites" a prior opinion in which the Court transferred a patent case under the first-to-file rule, Judge Davis noted that "[w]hile the law remains the same, each case, patent or not, presents its own unique set of facts. In these extremely fact intensive situations where there is multiple litigation in multiple forums over different patents, the outcome in one case does not dictate the outcome in another. Rather, the application of the law dictates the outcome in both cases. Often, those outcomes are similar, but often they are not because no two cases are exactly alike." 
Based on this case-specific analysis, Judge Davis determined that the technology between the California patents and Mediatek's Texas patents was sufficiently different such that the first-to-file rule did not apply.  Accordingly, the Court denied Sanyo's motion to transfer, grants Mediatek's motion to sever and transfer, and denies as moot Sanyo's motion for joinder.
"Absolute predictability of a court's rulings is certainly a worthy ambition," Judge Davis concluded, "but the Court must apply the law to each case individually, and that application sometimes results in different outcomes. "

Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Granted in Patent Case

MyMail, Ltd v. Earthlink, Inc., et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40687 (E.D. Tex, Oct. 28, 2005)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Division: Tyler
Holding: Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement GRANTED
COMMENTS:
I originally posted this case on Nov. 1 of last year, shortly after it came out - it was not designated for publication at that time, but is now, so I am re-posting with the LEXIS cite.
This is a patent infringement case arising out of a patent covering a method of providing dial-up internet access.  Following the Court's Markman hearing, the defendants moved for a summary judgment of noninfringement of the patent.  Judge Davis noted that although the there were differences in how the different defendants' systems operated, the aspect addressed was common to all systems.  Starting with literal infringement, Judge Davis held that summary judgment was proper because all of the asserted claims require a "network service provider" (NSP), and none of the defendants' systems use NSPs as that term was construed by the Court.  Judge Davis similarly found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because under the Court's claims construction, the NSP must authenticate the user, and the accused systems do not meet this limitation, a difference he declined to find was insubstantial.
Finally, Judge Davis granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement the summary judgment record with deposition testimony obtained after the summary judgment hearing, but held that the additional evidence did not affect the outcome of the case.

Summary Judgment Granted in BB Gun Case

JJI v. DAISY MFG. CO., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40661 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 16, 2005)
Judge: Richard Schell
Division: Sherman
Holding: Motions for Summary Judgment GRANTED; Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence DENIED AS MOOT.
COMMENTS:
Defendants Denton Sports and Daisy moved, in separate motions, for summary judgment on Plaintiff's product liability claims. Plaintiff did not respond to either of the motions, thus the court accepted Defendants' description of the pertinent facts as prima facie evidence of their entitlement to summary judgment under Local Rule CV-7(d), and accordingly granted summary judgment.

Summary Judgment Denied in Polio Vaccine Case: Newspaper Articles & Hearsay

HICKS v. CHARLES PFIZER & CO., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40660 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 29, 2005)
Judge: Marcia Crone
Division: Beaumont
Holding: Motion for Summary Judgment DENIED
COMMENTS:
Pfizer sought summary judgment on Plaintiffs' personal injury action asserting claims for products liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of warranty, arising out of Plaintiff's ingestion of oral polio vaccine ("OPV"). The Hicks contend that the vaccine caused Karen Hicks to develop two, non-malignant, brain tumors. The case focused on the application of the hearsay rules to 1962 newspaper articles which suggested that Pfizer manufactured the OPV in question.  Judge Crone held that these were sufficient to raise a material issue of fact, precluding the entry of summary judgment in favor of Pfizer.

Pro se Puppy Petition Put Down Pending Prosecution

MOORE v. GARNER, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7178 (E.D. Tex. 2006)
Judge: Magistrate Judge John Love
Division: Tyler
Holding: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute a Claim GRANTED
COMMENTS:
Rene Moore, Randall Moore, and Moore's Precious Puppies, (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed their original complaint, pro se, on February 26, 2004 alleging that the approximately 65 Defendants acted in concert in violation of the RICO statute, by committing libel, slander, and defamation in connection with unflattering news coverage of Plaintiffs' animal breeding business.  Over the next two years the plaintiffs did not respond to the various motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, but appealed the show cause orders to Judge Steger, sought Judge McKee (Judge Love's predecessor as magistrate judge) disqualification, and appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit.  After receiving no response to its previous two orders to respond or show cause, the Court began to recommend that Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissal be granted without response from Plaintiffs. Between  September 1, 2004 and June 28, 2005, the Court issued nineteen Report and Recommendations granting various Defendants' motions for dismissal or summary judgment.  Plaintiffs did not respond to any of Defendants' motions nor did Plaintiffs object to any of the associated Report and Recommendations. In fact, Plaintiffs did not communicate with the Court or taken any action in this case since June 20, 2004.  Finally, Judge Love held that "[t]he Court sees no reason to allow Plaintiffs to hold the remaining Defendants captive in a dead case" and that FRCP 41(b) authorized dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. 
In a perhaps not surprising development, Judge Love's report and recommendation was adopted by Judge Steger at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7176.  For readers who just can't get enough of this case, Levis has apparently seen fit to report nine of the orders letting various defendants out.  The precedential value of these opinions is somewhat uncertain.

As of this writing, there is no indication how the puppies (which are, by now, well, dogs) feel about any of this.

Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Claims for Failure to State Claim/Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Denied

GOLDEN BRIDGE TECH. v. NOKIA, INC., 416 F.Supp.2d 525 (E.D. Tex. 2006)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Divison: Marshall
Holding: Joint Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and under 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction DENIED. 
COMMENTS:
The defendants sought dismissal for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Judge Davis held that GBT had sufficiently alleged that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to overcome a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, had appropriately alleged a per se violation, had  alleged a sufficient definition of the relevant market to overcome a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and had pleaded sufficient facts to establish antitrust standing.  He also held that GBT had pleaded sufficient facts to overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with regard to Defendant Lucent.  Since the federal claims were not dismissed, the motion to dismiss the state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied as well.