Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

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.