Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Forum non conveniens motion denied

Mecum v. Host Marriott Corp., Slip Copy, 2005 WL 997320(E.D.Tex. Apr 25, 2005) (NO. 4:04CV260)
Judge: Paul Brown
Division: Sherman
Holding: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Forum Non Conveniens DENIED
COMMENTS
This is a personal injury case arising out of injuries the plaintiff sustained in an accident in a hotel swimming pool in Alberta, Canada.  The defendants sought a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, forcing the case to be litigated in Canada.  Judge Brown found that the threshold showing that the alternative forum be "adequate" was not met because the province of Alberta does not recognize a child's claim for loss of consortium as a result of wrongful injury to the child's parent.  Accordingly, he found that he remedy afforded by that forum would be "clearly" unsatisfactory and therefore did not go on to the public & private factors analysis.

District court's summary judgment on noninfringement reversed by Federal Circuit

IEX Corp. v. Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc., 2003 WL 24045160(E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2003) (NO. 4:01CV16), vacated and remanded, IEX Corp. v. Blue Pumpkin Software, Inc., 122 Fed.Appx. 458, 2005 WL 236572 C.A.Fed.,2005.
Judge: Paul Brown; Magistrate Judge Don Bush
Division: Sherman
Holding: Summary judgment on noninfringement granted by district court; reversed by Federal Circuit
COMMENTS:
This is patent case dealing with the subject of telephone call centers.  The magistrate judge conducted the Markman hearing and his report was adopted by the district court with one significant revision.  The magistrate judge then recommended that the defendant's summary judgment motion be granted on July 8, 2003.  The district judge heard objections to the report on September 17, reviewed the report de novo, and adopted it.
On appeal, in an unpublished opinion, the Federal Circuit (Clevinger, J.) held that the district court improperly construed the claims of the patent at issue, and accordingly vacated the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further consideration. It also reinstated and remanded the defendant's invalidity, unenforceability and attorney's fees claims. 

Court awards $5.65 Million in Fees And Expenses Against Losing Defendant in Patent Case

Microtune (Texas), L.P. v. Broadcom Corp., 2004 WL 716697 (NO. 4:01CV23)
Judge: Brown
Division: Sherman
Date: March 18, 2004
Holding: Request for Award of Attorneys Fees GRANTED
COMMENTS:
This is a patent infringement case, in which the jury found that the defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's patent dealing with integrated television tuners, and that the patent was valid. The parties had stipulated as to the amount of the damages, but the plaintiff sought enhanced damages, interests and attorneys' fees due to the finding of "willfulness" under 35 U.S.C. § 284-85. In a previous order (2003 WL 23326002 - see "Enhanced Damages Awarded in Patent Case" post below) Judge Brown held that enhanced damages were appropriate, that interest should be awarded, and that attorneys' fees should be awarded and the amount requested was reasonable, but ordered that the billing records be submitted for in camera review before making a final fee award.
In this order, Judge Brown determined that prevailing plaintiff Microtune should be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,157,658.25 (a reduction of approximately $500,000 from the amount requested) and litigation- related expenses in the amount of $500,168.31. Interestingly, the Court noted that the defendant in the case incurred legal expenses of over $11 million. Judge Brown's opinion is an exhaustive application of the standards for awards of attorneys' fees, and may be useful for practitioners researching these issues.

Enhanced Damages Awarded in Patent Case

Case: Microtune (Texas), L.P. v. Broadcom Corp., 2003 WL 23326002 (NO. 4:01CV23)
Judge: Brown
Division: Sherman
Date: August 12, 2003
Holding: Plaintiff's Motion for Enhanced Damages and Interest and Attorneys Fees GRANTED.
COMMENTS: This is a patent infringement case, in which the jury found that the defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's patent dealing with integrated television tuners, and that the patent was valid. The parties had stipulated as to the amount of the damages, but the plaintiff sought enhanced damages, interest and attorneys' fees due to the finding of "willfulness" under 35 U.S.C. § 284-85. Judge Brown held that enhanced damages were appropriate, that interest should be awarded, and that attorneys' fees should be awarded and the amount requested was reasonable, but ordered that the billing records be submitted for in camera review before making a final fee award.

Post-House Bill 4 products claim against vehicle retailers remanded

Case: Kennimer v. Kia Motors Corp., et al., 4:03cv0333 (Docket #14)
Judge: Brown
Division: Sherman
Date: January 30, 2004
Holding: Motion to Remand GRANTED
COMMENTS: This is one of the first cases interpreting the recent legislative changes to Texas product liability law. Plaintiffs brought product liability claims in state court against Defendant Kia Motors and and Texas retailers from whom they purchased their vehicle. Asserting that there was not complete diversity because the dealers (who were, like the Plaintiffs, Texas citizens) had been "fraudulently joined" the Defendants removed the case to federal court.
Judge Brown noted that under the recently enacted Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 82.003, nonmanufacturing sellers are generally not liable, except in certain specified circumstances. The plaintiffs alleged that two of the exceptions that permitted liability were present: (1) the seller made express representations regarding the product which were false; and (2) the seller had actual notice of the alleged defect. Judge Brown rejected the first exception, finding that while the plaintiffs had affidavit proof that showed that there was "some possibility" of recovery, this exception had not been pleaded. However, the exception dealing with actual notice of a defect was pleaded, and since there was "some possibility" of recovery, taking all the plaintiffs' allegations as true, and resolving all ambiguities in the plaintiffs' favor as the court was required to do under federal remand law, complete diversity did not exist, and the case must therefore be remanded.
Thanks to Jim Clements of Austin, the plaintiffs' attorney in the case, for calling this case to my attention.