Monthly Archives: October 2017

Much Ado About Nothing: Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Reviews

I predict that tribal sovereign immunity will have little, if any, effect on inter partes reviews (IPRs). But if I’m wrong (and I’ve *occasionally* been wrong before), tribal sovereign immunity will lead to the death of IPRs, absent Congressional action. … Continue reading

Posted in Developing Law, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on Much Ado About Nothing: Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Reviews

Magistrate Judge Stickney Grants Motion For Costs, Finds $350/Hour Attorney-Fee Rate Reasonable

On September 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stickney entered an Order (available here) in The Sugar Art v. Confectionary Arts International. In the case, the plaintiff previously brought suit against the defendant in the Western District of Texas, and, in response … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Magistrate Judge Stickney | Comments Off on Magistrate Judge Stickney Grants Motion For Costs, Finds $350/Hour Attorney-Fee Rate Reasonable

Judge Kinkeade Refuses To Disqualify Sterne Kessler from Representing Global Tel*Link

On September 18, 2017, Judge Kinkeade entered an Order (available here) in Securus v. Global Tel*Link. Securus had moved to disqualify Sterne Kessler from representing Global Tel. Before January 2017, Global Tel was represented by Kellogg Huber. Two Kellogg attorneys … Continue reading

Posted in Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Refuses To Disqualify Sterne Kessler from Representing Global Tel*Link

Judge Kinkeade Grants Motion to Compel in Securus Technologies v. Global Tel*Link Corporation

On September 13, 2017, Judge Kinkeade granted, in part, a motion to compel filed in Securus v. Global Tel*Link (order available here). Plaintiff asserted, in its motion to compel, that defendant failed to comply with certain requests for production (e.g., … Continue reading

Posted in Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Grants Motion to Compel in Securus Technologies v. Global Tel*Link Corporation