Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness Denied

Mosaid v. Freescale, 6:11cv173 (4/29/13)

Judge: Keith Giblin

Holding: Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness Recommended DENIED

Judge Schneider referred the Markman in this case to Judge Giblin, who produced a report and recommendation last week on the defendants' motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness.

Judge Giblin wrote that Defendants' argument essentially boiled down to the contention that the permissive wording of one of the claims rendered it indefinite because a PHOSITA couldn't figure out whether the claim could be satisified by an apparatus that was something, something else, or something completely different entirely.  (Actually those are my words, not the Court's - kind of tells you where I fall on the PHOSITA continuum, doesn't it?)

The Court concluded that the claim was not indefinite, noting that he could not find, nor could the defendants, any authority for the proposition that words of permission in a claim render it automatically indefinite.  In other words, he decided that a PHOSITA could, in fact, figure it out.

A Bridge Too Far: Following Jury Verdict of Noninfringement and Invalidity Defendant Failed to Show Inequitable Conduct by Clear and Convincing Evidence

Mettler-Toledo, Inc v. Fairbanks Scales Inc et al, 9:06cv00097) (E.D. Tex. 11/9/2010)

Judge Keith F. Giblin

Holding: No Inequitable Conduct Found

Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: I've just been on to Monty. He's very proud and pleased.
Major General Urquhart: Pleased?
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: Of course. He thinks Market Garden was 90% successful.
Major General Urquhart: But what do you think?
Lt. General Frederick "Boy" Browning: Well, as you know, I always felt we tried to go a bridge too far.

This case was tried before a jury January 9, 2009 through January 29, 2009, resulting in a verdict in favor of Defendant B-Tek Scales, LLC on infringement of all three of the asserted patents, and and for the defendant on invalidity as to two of the three patents. 

Following the jury trial in this case, the defendant, inspired no doubt by Gen. Montgomery's campaign to take the bridges across the Rhine in Operation Market Garden (from which came the Cornelius Ryan book from which we derive the colloqial term A Bridge Too Far) launched Operation Inequitable Conduct Garden (at least that's what I think they called it), seeking a judicial finding that the patents that it didn't infringe and which were invalid anyway (two of the three) were also unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. 

Judge Giblin accordingly conducted a bench trial on the issue of inequitable conduct, after which he concluded that the defendants had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence an intent to deceive sufficient for a finding of inequitable conduct. "While [defendant] need not point to a 'smoking gun' to prevail, because inequitable conduct may be inferred from circumstantial evidence," the Court wrote, "the inference must 'be the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.'"  In this case, Judge Giblin found the prosecuting attorney credible as a witness, and that the evidence presented was open to more than one interpretation."

From Docket Navigator

Artwork from Flames of War.

Beaumont jury finds patent not infringed and invalid

Beaumont magistrate judge Keith Giblin was late - very late - for the Eastern District judges' meeting yesterday afternoon, but with good reason.  Judge Giblin just tried to a jury verdict his first patent case, Mettler-Toldeo, Inc. v. Fairbanks Scales, Inc., et al, 9:06cv97.  The jury found none of the eleven claims of the three aserted patents infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and also found that there was no contributory infringement as alleged.  The jury declined to find that the claims of one of the patent were invalid as anticipated, or that another was obvious, but found two of the three patents invalid anyway as obvious.  Reports are that the case was well-tried on both sides, and that the attorneys threw pretty much everything but the kitchen sink at the judge during the trial.
Judge and jury are reportedly resting comfortably today.

Claims construction opinion

Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 2008 WL 2325623(E.D.Tex. Jun 03, 2008) (NO. CIV.A. 9:06-CV-240)
Judge: Keith Giblin
Holding: Claims construction opinion

Claims construction opinion

Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Enpath Medical, Inc., 2008 WL 744250(E.D.Tex. Mar 19, 2008) (NO. CIV.A. 9:06-CV-121)
Judge: Keith Giblin
Holding: Claims construction opinion

 

Claims construction opinion

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. Fairbanks Scales Inc., 2008 WL 648521(E.D.Tex. Mar 07, 2008) (NO. CIV.A. 9:06-CV-97)
Judge: Keith Giblin
Holding: Claims construction opinion

Defendants' Motion to Compel Granted in Part in Patent Case

Flashmark Technologies LLC v. GTECH Corp., 2007 WL 2264765(E.D.Tex. Aug 06, 2007) (NO. CIVA 206-CV-205)
Judge: Keith Giblin
Holding: Defendants' Motion to Compel GRANTED in part
Defendants sought production of documents redacted by the Plaintiff on grounds of relevance or privilege.  Judge Giblin reviewed the documents in camera and granted the motion in part.  As to the documents redacted on the basis of relevance, Judge Giblin permitted the defendants to inspect the documents at a place designated by plaintiff, and cautioned the parties about further discovery disputes on these documents.
With respect to documents claimed to be privileged, plaintiff did not show that the attorney/client privilege applied, so Judge Giblin examined the documents under work product protection principles, and found that Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that work product protection applied to these documents. Because Defendants did not show that this privilege was waived, or that a substantial need existed to examine these documents, Defendants' Motion to Compel production of these documents was denied.

Not Cruel and Unusual Enough: Refusal to Serve Coffee to Inmates Not a Constitutional Violation

Mujwid v. Kitchen Captain, 2007 WL 1886225(E.D.Tex. Jun 29, 2007) (NO. 1:07-CV-252)
Judge: Thad Heartfield/Keith Giblin
I typically don't post on inmate cases, but thought that there might be some interest in law firms as to whether deprival of coffee constitutes a constitutional violation.
Plaintiff alleged that the second shift Kitchen Captain at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, discriminates against the inmates in administrative segregation by failing to serve them coffee daily. Plaintiff also contended that the food is not made properly and the drinks served at lunch and dinner are watered down.  Plaintiff contends that the trays are cold because the warmer does not work properly, and that there are prison policies governing these aspects of the food service, but that the second shift Kitchen Captain is not following those policies.
Judge Giblin reviewed the inmate's civil rights action and recommended that it should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims Granted; Motion More More Definite Statement Denied

Dommert v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., 2007 WL 1018234(E.D.Tex. Mar 29, 2007) (NO. CIV A. 1:06-CV-102)
Judge: David Folsom/Keith Giblin
Holding: Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims GRANTED; Motion for More Definite Statement on Class Action Allegations DENIED.
This is a class action against a financial services firm.  Defendants sought to dismiss the plaintiff's state law claims as preempted by SLUSA and for a more definite statement as to the class allegations.  Judge Giblin recommended, and Judge Folsom agreed, that the motion to dismiss be granted but the motion for more definite statement be denied.