On February 5, 2013, Judge Solis issued an Order (available here) in Excentus v. CodePro, a patent infringement lawsuit pending in the Northern District of Texas.
Plaintiff (who had filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against the Defendant after receiving a notice letter from the Defendant) had filed a motion to enjoin Defendant’s (later-filed) lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Texas. Judge Solis denied the motion to enjoin, as there were “two distinct lawsuits” at issue. For example, the only common party is Defendant, although each lawsuit involves the same patent. Judge Solis, however, allowed the issue to be raised again “in due course with proper cause.”
Judge Solis then denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Judge Soli held that the plaintiff had adequately stated the elements for declaratory relief and had attached “smoking-gun style letters accusing it and its customers of patent infringement on a variety of theories.” Plaintiff had also shown that the Defendant “exhibits the propensity to sue over these patents as evidenced by past litigation.” Taken together, these circumstances triggered a case or controversy. In summary, the Court found that the Plaintiff had standing to bring suit in sufficiently pled claims for declaratory relief.
Plaintiff Excentus is represented by Brett Govett, Karl Dial, and Michael Regitz, all of Fulbright & Jaworski.
Defendant CodePro Innovations is represented by Brett Johnson, Walton Webb, III, and Stephanie Wood, all of Farney Daniels P.C.