David Folsom

In Doss v. United States, two employees of a contractor working at a U.S. Army depot sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence caused an electrical explosion that severely injured them. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Texas law applies to the FTCA claims and includes an exclusive remedy provision that bars employee suits for on-the-job injuries when the employer or general contractor provides workers' compensation coverage. The court found that the United States acted as a general contractor under a contract with the plaintiffs' employer and had provided such coverage, making it a statutory employer immune from the claims.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an objection by plaintiff Advanced Technology Incubator, Inc. to defendant Sharp's proposed Japanese-language trial interpreter, Jared Taylor, in a civil action that had been transferred and reset for trial. The court sustained the objection and disqualified Taylor after finding that, although no actual bias was shown, his prior service as a check interpreter for Sharp during depositions, his involvement in privileged attorney-client communications, and his paid work in social settings with Sharp's team created an appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest. The court also continued the trial to allow Sharp time to secure a replacement interpreter, noting that proceeding without one would prejudice Sharp's witnesses. The ruling focused on maintaining impartiality in courtroom interpretation services under federal practice standards.

procedure

This case involved a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after a Border Patrol agent stopped his van on an interstate highway far from the border. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, finding the agent lacked reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances because the van was merely heavily loaded with tinted windows and the driver stared straight ahead, without additional factors like tips, erratic driving, or suspicious vehicle modifications. The government objected, citing the area's characteristics, the agent's experience, and similarities to prior cases, but the district court overruled the objections after de novo review. The court adopted the recommendation and granted the motion to suppress, holding that the stop was not supported by specific articulable facts.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involves a patent infringement suit brought by ESN, LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,283,519 related to VoIP telephony technology invented by Gregory D. Girard. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, contending that Girard had assigned his rights in the patent to a non-party employer, Iperia, Inc., through an employment agreement, and also moved for related discovery on the issue. Plaintiff responded with arguments and evidence that the invention fell outside the scope of the agreement and was not owned by Iperia, while also filing a separate motion to disqualify counsel and impose sanctions for alleged improper financial incentives offered in exchange for testimony. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that ESN lacked standing because it could not establish ownership of the patent, and granted in part the sanctions motion as modified while denying it in part, based on violations of discovery rules and ethical standards.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which Balthasar Online alleged that multiple defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,000,180, which covers methods and systems for creating rich-media applications over the Internet. Several California-based defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, transferring claims against defendants for whom venue and personal jurisdiction existed in the Northern District of California at the time suit was filed, while retaining claims against the Texas-based defendants who could not have been sued there. The ruling applied the threshold requirement that transfer is permitted only to a district where the action might originally have been brought, allowing severance of claims against different defendants.

procedure

In TiVo Inc. v. Dish Network Corp., the court considered TiVo's motion for sanctions after finding EchoStar (Dish Network) in contempt of an injunction that barred infringement of TiVo's '389 Patent with certain DVR products. The court had previously determined that EchoStar's design-around attempts were not more than colorably different from the infringing products and failed to comply with the injunction's directives. The court awarded TiVo $2.25 per DVR subscriber per month for the contempt period (April 18, 2008, to July 1, 2009), totaling nearly $200 million, plus attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the contempt proceedings; this amount combined the jury's $1.25 royalty rate for compensation with an additional $1 sanction to promote compliance. The award rested on Fifth Circuit factors for civil contempt sanctions, including harm from noncompliance, effectiveness of the sanction, the contemnor's financial resources, and willfulness, while accepting EchoStar's good-faith representations and declining to treble the rate at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this patent case, Ring Plus sued Cingular Wireless (now AT&T entities) for infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,006,608, which covers a software method for playing audio messages during telephone ringing signals. After granting summary judgment of non-infringement, the court held a bench trial on the defendants' counterclaim that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the USPTO. The court found the patent unenforceable, concluding that the applicants had withheld a draft information disclosure statement containing material prior art and made false representations that references like Sleevi and Strietzel did not disclose software algorithms for telephone operation, misstatements that were material and made with intent to deceive. These findings were based on deposition testimony from the applicants and expert analysis showing contradictions with the applicants' own later statements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns TiVo's claims that EchoStar (Dish Network) infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, which covers a multimedia time warping system for DVRs allowing simultaneous storage and playback of TV signals. A jury found the patent valid, that EchoStar's 50X and Broadcom DVR products infringed the asserted hardware and software claims (literally or under the doctrine of equivalents), and that the infringement was willful, awarding damages. After entry of a permanent injunction requiring EchoStar to disable DVR functionality and cease infringement, EchoStar implemented modified software, prompting TiVo's motion for contempt. The opinion outlines the background, applies the KSM Fastening Systems two-step test for determining whether the modifications are more than colorably different and continue to infringe, and examines whether EchoStar complied with the injunction's specific terms.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Paice LLC sued Toyota Motor Corporation alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970 by three hybrid vehicles. A jury found the patent valid and infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, awarding past damages of approximately $4.27 million, after which the district court denied a permanent injunction and imposed an initial ongoing royalty of $25 per vehicle. On remand from the Federal Circuit, which required reevaluation of the ongoing royalty with an opportunity for the parties to negotiate, the court held an evidentiary hearing after negotiations failed and set new rates of 0.48% of wholesale price for each Prius, 0.32% for each Highlander, and 0.26% for each Lexus RX400h for the patent's remaining term. The court based these rates on evidence of reasonable royalties, distinguishing prospective from past damages and accounting for changed economic circumstances between the parties.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Hammond v. Pearle Vision, Inc., the plaintiff brought claims including a violation of the Texas Occupations Code (Optometry Act) arising from Pearle Vision's alleged interference with his optometry practice, along with later-added breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims. The court addressed Pearle's motion for partial summary judgment asserting that the Optometry Act claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court sustained Pearle's objection to the magistrate's recommendation, granted the motion, and held that a two-year limitations period applied because the claim was analogous to a tort action for interference with business relations rather than a contract or debt action. The claim accrued in October 2004 but suit was not filed until May 2007, making it untimely, and the remaining motions were dismissed as moot.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. against Hoffman-La Roche Inc. and related entities, alleging that their HIV drug Fuzeon infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,285,271. Defendants moved to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Eastern District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406, or alternatively to dismiss defendant Trimeris for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to clearly demonstrate that transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses or the interest of justice, as all private and public interest factors were neutral or did not favor the transferee district. The court further found that Trimeris was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because it placed the allegedly infringing product into the stream of commerce and conducted pre-issuance clinical testing activities in the state, making venue proper.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Texas inmate Kurby Decker, proceeding pro se, sued numerous prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations including inadequate access to the law library, denial of an extra legal storage box, retaliation, and cruel and unusual punishment such as being denied restroom access. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and after reviewing the pleadings and evidence, the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. The district court adopted the report, finding no constitutional violations established and holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established rights. The court therefore dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Dr. Edna G. Acuna suing Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and MetLife for denial of disability benefits under two insurance policies governed by ERISA after she became unable to work as an anesthesiologist due to ocular disease. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of judicial estoppel and standing because Acuna and her husband had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy without disclosing the policies or the potential claim in their schedules, received a discharge, and only later attempted to amend the filings. The court granted the motion, holding that the nondisclosure judicially estopped Acuna from pursuing the claim to prevent inconsistent positions and windfalls, and that the bankruptcy estate (via the trustee) owned the pre-petition cause of action, depriving her of standing even if an exemption were later granted.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this patent infringement case, Premier International Associates sued multiple technology companies including Hewlett-Packard for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,243,725 and 6,763,345. The defendants moved to stay the litigation pending reexamination of the patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The court granted the motions to stay as modified by a stipulation limiting the defendants' use of certain prior art in future invalidity arguments. The decision applied the three-factor test of prejudice, issue simplification, and case status, while noting the benefits of PTO expertise and potential narrowing of issues through reexamination.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Dr. Edna Acuna suing Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and MetLife to recover benefits under two disability income protection policies after she became unable to work as an anesthesiologist due to an ocular condition. The central issue was whether the policies formed part of an employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA or fell outside its scope. The court determined that ERISA applies because the plaintiff's professional association paid the premiums, handled administrative tasks such as processing invoices and bookkeeping, selected benefits, and thereby established and maintained a plan that did not meet the Department of Labor safe harbor criteria.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Spreadsheet Automation Corp. against Microsoft Corp., alleging that Microsoft's Access and Excel products infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,033,009, with the dispute now limited to claims 6 and 7 after partial invalidity stipulations. The court addressed defendant's Daubert motions to exclude testimony from plaintiff's damages expert Joseph Gemini and willfulness expert N. Elton Dry, focusing on issues such as the use of settlement licenses in royalty calculations, the entire market value rule, and the scope of pre-suit damages. The court granted the motion to exclude Gemini's testimony in part, specifically regarding consent decrees, settlements, and licenses made under threat of litigation, but denied it otherwise, and denied all motions regarding Dry and the supplemental filings. The reasoning applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards to assess whether the experts' methodologies were reliable and relevant, finding that certain litigation-influenced licenses lacked sufficient connection to the case facts while other aspects of the testimony met the criteria for admissibility.

procedure

In this patent infringement action, 800 Adept, Inc. sued Patriot Communications LLC for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,689 and Re 36,111, which cover a geographically mapped telephone routing method and system. Patriot moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), arguing improper venue because it neither resided in nor committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The magistrate judge recommended denial after finding Patriot had sufficient purposeful contacts with the district through national marketing of its routing services and customers with a presence there, and the district judge adopted the recommendation following de novo review. The court held that these contacts established a prima facie case for proper venue, though it preserved disputed factual issues for trial and required the plaintiff to prove venue facts conclusively. Patriot's objections that any infringement occurred outside the district and that contacts were not purposeful were rejected.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Sabrina Blake filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought to discharge her student loans under the undue hardship exception in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), claiming her financial circumstances prevented repayment. The bankruptcy court granted the discharge after finding she met the Brunner test, but the district court reversed on appeal. The district court held that Blake failed to satisfy the second prong of the Brunner test, as the identified factors (including her age, limited job prospects, daughter's dependency, and work hours) did not constitute additional circumstances showing her inability to pay would likely persist for a significant portion of the repayment period. The court remanded the case for entry of an order consistent with its findings that the loans were not dischargeable.

procedurefederal power

QR Spex sued Motorola, Oakley, and related entities for patent infringement based on the O Rokr Bluetooth-enabled sunglasses, which were developed jointly by Oakley and Motorola but not yet widely marketed at the time of filing. Oakley and ODI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the defendants jointly sought severance and transfer of the case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The court dismissed Oakley and ODI without prejudice, finding insufficient minimum contacts with Texas because the product had not entered the state through the stream of commerce in a meaningful way and sales to Texas residents were avoided after the suit began. It granted transfer for the remaining served defendants, reasoning that the Eastern District of Texas had only nominal local interest, key witnesses and evidence were in California, and proceeding there would promote judicial economy. The court also severed the unserved defendant Xonix to facilitate the transfer.

procedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by William Reid and related plaintiffs against General Motors and other defendants over U.S. Patent No. 6,131,120, which concerns enterprise network security and access controls. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Reid had assigned his rights to the patent to his former employer Plancom under an Intellectual Property Rights Assignment agreement covering inventions related to the company's business of providing remote network access and security services. The court granted the motion after determining that the patent's subject matter was reasonably related to Plancom's business or contemplated business, as evidenced by the agreement's terms, the settlement from prior state court litigation, and similarities to Plancom's other patents. Because the assignment transferred title by operation of law, the plaintiffs lacked ownership and standing to sue, leading to dismissal of the complaints without prejudice.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory