Author Archives: Steven Callahan

Supreme Court Rules Copyright Does Not Extend To Annotations In A State’s Official Annotated Code

On April 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (available here). The Court found that Georgia could not copyright, via a third-party contractor under a work-for-hire agreement, the official version of its annotated code. Under … Continue reading

Posted in U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules Copyright Does Not Extend To Annotations In A State’s Official Annotated Code

Supreme Court Rules That PTAB’s Time-Bar Decisions Are Not Appealable

On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP (available here). 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) provides that, with respect to inter partes reviews, “[t]he determination by the [Patent & Trademark Office’s] Director … Continue reading

Posted in U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules That PTAB’s Time-Bar Decisions Are Not Appealable

AAA Teaches Disgruntled Arbitration Claimant How To Litigate Like A Boss

One might think that a non-profit like the American Arbitration Association (AAA), which spends the vast majority of its time administering arbitrations, might not know too much about litigation. But the Fifth Circuit’s April 7, 2020 decision (available here) in … Continue reading

Posted in Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on AAA Teaches Disgruntled Arbitration Claimant How To Litigate Like A Boss

Artic Cat (Part I and II): Lots To Know About Patent Marking

In 2017 and 2020, the Federal Circuit issued two Arctic Cat decisions (available here and here) that are important for any patent litigator (and patent owner) to understand. Both decisions deal with patent marking and thus patent damages. By law, … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on Artic Cat (Part I and II): Lots To Know About Patent Marking

Should You Communicate With Your Opponent’s Employees Without Your Opposing Counsel’s Permission? Likely Not.

I know it’s technically allowed in some instances but I’ve never seen a situation where contacting your opponent’s employees directly (as opposed to, e.g., seeking their depositions) did any good. So I avoid it. The district court (S.D.N.Y.) recently issued … Continue reading

Posted in Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions, Practice Tips, Sanctions | Comments Off on Should You Communicate With Your Opponent’s Employees Without Your Opposing Counsel’s Permission? Likely Not.

E-Mail From Court to Court Coordinator, Instead of Signed Written Order, Is Sufficient to Trigger “Waiver Through Delay”

Things in Texas state court are a bit different from federal court. Take the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision In re Yamaha Golf-Car Company (available here). In the case, the trial court e-mailed her court administrator stating that the … Continue reading

Posted in Non-N.D. Tex. Notable Decisions, Practice Tips | Comments Off on E-Mail From Court to Court Coordinator, Instead of Signed Written Order, Is Sufficient to Trigger “Waiver Through Delay”

No, You Can’t Join Your Own IPR

On March 18, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC (available here). At issue was whether Facebook could join its own IPR after the 1-year bar date. The Federal Circuit held that … Continue reading

Posted in Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on No, You Can’t Join Your Own IPR

Judge Godbey Stays Patent Case Pending IPR, Pre-IPR Institution

On January 23, 2020, Judge Godbey issued a decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. LG Electronics (available here). Nine months after Uniloc filed suit, LG filed a petition for inter partes review of the patent-in-suit. Although the PTAB had not … Continue reading

Posted in Judge Godbey (Chief Judge) | Comments Off on Judge Godbey Stays Patent Case Pending IPR, Pre-IPR Institution

Judge Kinkeade Denies Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Local Counsel

On February 6, 2020, Judge Kinkeade denied a motion for leave to proceed without local counsel (minute order available here). Judge Kinkeade required the defendant to designate local counsel within 14 days and further provided that both local counsel and … Continue reading

Posted in Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Denies Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Local Counsel

Judge Pittman Dismisses Lawsuit Without Prejudice For Failure To Comply With Local Counsel Requirement

On March 11, 2020, Judge Pittman entered an order (available here) in McDermott v. Salem Media Group. The Court has previously required the plaintiff to comply with Local Rule 83.10 (requiring local counsel) within fourteen days from February 25, 2020. … Continue reading

Posted in Judge Pittman | Comments Off on Judge Pittman Dismisses Lawsuit Without Prejudice For Failure To Comply With Local Counsel Requirement