Subscribe to ND Tex Blog
-
Recent Posts
- Patent Pilot Program To Expire In July 2021
- Repeat Copyright Plaintiff (Who Is Also Attorney Who Represents Himself) Hit With $172,173 Award For Losing Copyright Case
- Federal Circuit to W.D. Tex.: Court Congestion Not Enough To Justify Keeping Case On Transfer Motion
- Supreme Court Holds That Booking.Com May Be A Trademark
- Post-Judgment Discovery Revealing Party As Judgment-Proof Shell Company Warrants Re-Opening Case And Joining New Parties (Including Party’s Owners and Law Firm)
Archives
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
Categories
- Attorney's Fees
- Costs
- Dallas Legal Community
- Developing Law
- Discovery
- Dondi
- Ethics
- FAQs
- Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
- Federal Rules
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Injunctions
- Judge Boyle
- Judge Brown
- Judge Cummings (Ret.)
- Judge Fish
- Judge Fitzwater
- Judge Furgeson (Ret.)
- Judge Godbey (Chief Judge)
- Judge Hendrix
- Judge Kacsmaryk
- Judge Kinkeade
- Judge Lindsay
- Judge Lynn
- Judge Maloney (Ret.)
- Judge McBryde (Ret.)
- Judge Means
- Judge O'Connor
- Judge Pittman
- Judge Robinson (Ret.)
- Judge Scholer
- Judge Solis (Ret.)
- Judge Starr
- Local Rules
- Magistrate Judge Averitte (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Bryant
- Magistrate Judge Cureton
- Magistrate Judge Frost
- Magistrate Judge Horan
- Magistrate Judge Kaplan (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Koenig (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Lane (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Parker
- Magistrate Judge Ramirez
- Magistrate Judge Ray
- Magistrate Judge Reno
- Magistrate Judge Roach (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Rutherford
- Magistrate Judge Stickney (Ret.)
- Magistrate Judge Toliver
- N.D. Tex. News
- N.D. Tex. Patent Rules
- New Lawsuits Filed
- Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions
- Northern District Practice Tips
- Personal
- Practice Tips
- Sanctions
- Texas Supreme Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
Monthly Archives: January 2020
Judge Pittman
President Trump appointed Judge Pittman as a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas in 2019. Judge Pittman obtained his B.A., magna cum laude, from Texas A&M University in 1996, and his J.D. from the University of … Continue reading
Posted in Judge Pittman
Comments Off on Judge Pittman
Supreme Court Rejects Patent Office’s Request For Attorney’s Fees In Section 145 Cases
On December 11, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (available here). The statute-at-issue was 35 U.S.C. § 145, which allows an applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent … Continue reading
Posted in U.S. Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Rejects Patent Office’s Request For Attorney’s Fees In Section 145 Cases