EnergyComNetwork LLC Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas

On October 27, 2010, EnergyComNetwork LLC (“ECN”) sued Acacia Energy, LLC in the Northern District of Texas for trademark infringement (pdf copy of the complaint available here).  ECN sells electric meter reading and data analysis services under its “PayGo” mark.  According to ECN, “Defendant AE applied for and received an Assumed Name from the Texas Secretary of State for ‘PayGo Power’ on or about May 19, 2010” and registered the domain name www.paygopower.com on May 4, 2010.”

Based on such conduct, ECN claims that Acacia Energy has committed trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

ECN is represented by Richard Schwartz and Thomas Harkins, Jr., both of Whitaker, Chalk, Swindle & Sawyer, LLP.

The case is pending before Judge Means.

Posted in Judge Means, New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on EnergyComNetwork LLC Files Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas

Chief Judge Fitzwater Issues Bill of Costs Opinion

On October 26, 2010, Chief Judge Fitzwater issued an opinion in Arrieta v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., an employment discrimination case currently pending in the Northern District of Texas (pdf of opinion located here).  Plaintiffs Arrieta and Calip were unsuccessful in their lawsuit against Yellow Transportation, Inc. (“YTI”).  YTI then sought its costs.  Chief Judge Fitzwater’s opinion focused on whether certain costs were appropriately taxable pursuant to 128 U.S.C. § 1920.

Chief Judge Fitzwater first rejected plaintiffs’ argument that YTI was not entitled to any costs:  

As a prevailing party in a civil action, YTI is entitled to recover its taxable costs “unless . . . a court order provides otherwise.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).1  “Rule 54(d)(1) contains a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.”  Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985)).  “Indeed, [the Fifth Circuit] has held that ‘the prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs,’ and has described the denial of costs as ‘in the nature of a penalty.’  Id. at 793-94 (quoting Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 131).  “As a result of this cost-shifting presumption, the general discretion conferred by Rule 54(d)(1) has been circumscribed by the judicially-created condition that a court ‘may neither deny nor reduce a prevailing party’s request for cost without first articulating some good reason for doing so.’”  Id. at 794 (quoting Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 131).

Chief Judge Fitzwater then found that YTI had established that approximately $7,000 in costs were recoverable for daily trial transcripts, as they were necessarily obtained for use in the case (as opposed to primarily obtained for convenience).  But Chief Judge Fitzwater rejected the amounts submitted by YTI for exhibit production costs ($1,550), as “[a]bsent pretrial approval of the exhibits . . . a party may not later request taxation of the production costs to its opponent.”  La. Pwr. & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 335 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).  Chief Judge Fitzwater found that, “[b]ecause YTI did not obtain pretrial authorization for the costs of producing the exhibits at issue, the court sustains [plaintiffs’] objection and disallows $1,550 for these costs.”  Finally, Chief Judge Fitzwater allowed approximately $10,000 in travel fees for three witnesses, finding that the testimony of these witnesses was necessary to YTI’s defenses, as it was necessary to bring them to trial (as opposed to simply using their deposition testimony) to establish their credibility.

Arietta and Calip are represented by Clinton Kelly, F. Dulin Kelly, and Andy Allman, of Kelly Kelly & Allman; and Christine Neill and Jane Byrne, of Neill & Byrne, PLLC.

Yellow Transportation, Inc. is represented by Richard KrumholzShauna Clark, Danielle Clarkson, and Jaclyn Hermes, all of Fulbright & Jaworski.

Posted in Costs, Judge Fitzwater | Comments Off on Chief Judge Fitzwater Issues Bill of Costs Opinion

Compound Stock Earnings Seminar, Inc. Files Copyright Infringement Action in the Northern District of Texas

On November 2, 2010, Compound Stock Earnings Seminar, Inc. (“Compound”) filed a lawsuit against Mark Dannenberg, one of Compound’s former consultants, in the Northern District of Texas (pdf copy of the complaint available here).  According to Compound, on October 28, 2010, Dannenberg asserted “that the strategies and material” in certain of Compound’s securities trading manuals were Dannenberg’s intellectual property and demanded a $240,000 payment.  Compound then filed suit against Dannenberg, asserting that Dannenberg infringed Compound’s copyright in the works.  Compound seeks, among other things, an injunction, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Compound is represented by Darrell Cook, Catherine Keith, and Kelly Bryan, all of Darrell W. Cook & Associates.

The case is pending before Chief Judge Fitzwater.

Posted in Judge Fitzwater, New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Compound Stock Earnings Seminar, Inc. Files Copyright Infringement Action in the Northern District of Texas

Judge Means Awards Highmark $4.7 Million in Attorney’s Fees In Patent Infringement Lawsuit

On November 5, 2010, Judge Means issued an order in Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. awarding Highmark $4,694,727.40 in attorney’s fees and $209,626.56 in expenses (pdf copy of order here).  The order arose out of a patent infringement lawsuit between Highmark and Allcare.  Highmark filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, and Allcare counterclaimed for infringement of its patent.  After Highmark prevailed on its noninfringement defense, Judge Means determined that the case was exceptional, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, in Highmark’s favor on account of certain actions undertaken by Allcare, and that there was no cause to exercise the Court’s discretion and deny Highmark’s request for fees.

Highmark’s fee motion indicated that “16,019.67 hours were expended by attorneys working on its case and that an additional 2,640.54 hours were expended by non-attorneys” over the course of seven years.  Judge Means concluded that the hourly rates of Highmark’s counsel were reasonable, but reduced the fee amount by those fees attributable to Highmark’s invalidity and unenforceability defenses and those fees attributable to certain discovery disputes (which amounted to less than $200,000).

Judge Means used his inherent authority to award approximately $360,000 in expert fees, given that 35 U.S.C. § 285 does not permit an award of expert fees as part of an exceptional case finding.  Judge Means had earlier found that Allcare “pursued frivolous counterclaims even after it became clear that those counterclaims were meritless” and “asserted defenses despite knowing they were meritless.”

Highmark is represented by Craig Florence and Robert Slovak, both of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP; and Cynthia KernickFrederick Colen, and Kevin Katona, all of Reed Smith LLP.

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Judge Means | Comments Off on Judge Means Awards Highmark $4.7 Million in Attorney’s Fees In Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Judge Boyle Issues Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment in Heeling Sports Ltd. v. New Concord, Inc.

On November 2, 2010, Judge Boyle permanently enjoined New Concord from infringing Heeling Sports Ltd.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,406,038; 6,739,602; and 6,746,026, all of which relate to roller-skate shoes. New Concord was required to pay $375,300 for its infringement ($15 per pair of shoes).  New Concord was also enjoined from infringing the patents-in-suit.  A copy of the order is here.

Heeling Sports is represented by Craig Florence, Andrew Howard, and Thomas Wright, all of Gardere Wynne Sewell.

New Concord is represented by Kevin Tung.

Posted in Judge Boyle | Comments Off on Judge Boyle Issues Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment in Heeling Sports Ltd. v. New Concord, Inc.

Judge O’Connor Tosses False Claims Act Claim Against Northrop Grumman

On October 27, 2010, Judge O’Connor held in United States ex rel. DeKort v. Integrated Coast Guard Systems that one of the claims in Michael DeKort’s qui tam False Claims Act lawsuit against Lockheed Martin, Integrated Coast Guard Systems, and Northrop Grumman failed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (pdf copy of decision here). 

The case relates to the Coast Guard’s expenditure of over $96 million to retrofit eight patrol boats.  The boats are presently useless after being decommissioned by the Coast Guard.  “Relator Michael J. DeKort alleges that Northrop Grumman violated the FCA by fraudulently certifying that the boats would meet the Coast Guard’s performance specifications while knowingly or recklessly disregarding various design defects that later resulted in severe hull buckling and shaft misalignments[.]”  Northrop Grumman denied the allegations and further asserted that the False Claims Act’s “public disclosure bar,” found in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4), deprived the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over DeKort’s claim that  Northrop Grumman knew that the designs of the boats were defective but built them anyway and delivered them to the Coast Guard.

Judge O’Connor agreed, finding that DeKort’s design defect claim was disclosed in Congressional hearings in 2007, and that he was not the original source of this information (i.e., he did not have direct and independent knowledge of this information and he had not voluntarily provided the information to the government before filing suit).  Accordingly, Judge O’Connor dismissed this claim pursuant to § 3730(e)(4).

Relator DeKort is represented by Samuel Boyd and Catherine Jobe, both of Boyd & Associates; and James Helmer, Jr., Julie Popham, Robert Rice, and Erin Campbell, all of Helmer Martins Rice & Popham Co. L.P.A.

Northrop Grumman is represented by David McAtee, II, Christopher Rogers, and Sarah Teachout, of Haynes & Boone LLP; and Allen Cannon, III, Angela Martinez, David Taylor, Donald Carney, Jeffrey Eisenstein, Maggie Greenlee, Richard Clifford, Jr., Suzette Derrevere, Thomas Boeder, and W. Hartmann Young, all of Perkins Coie LLP.

Lockheed Martin Corp. is represented by Daniel Chudd, Edward Jackson, Jennifer Dlugosz, Michael Khoo, Sarah Maguire, and W. Jay DeVecchio, all of Jenner & Block LLP.

Integrated Coast Guard Systems is represented by Kaylee Higginbotham and William Whitehill, both of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP; and Craig Guthery, Gregory Smith, Hans Chen, John Henault, and Robert Vieth, all of Cooley LLP.

Posted in Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Judge O’Connor Tosses False Claims Act Claim Against Northrop Grumman

$260,000 in Attorney’s Fees and Expenses Awarded in Wachovia’s Case Against Schlegels

On October 29, 2010, Chief Judge Fitzwater awarded Wachovia $259,367.58 in attorney’s fees and expenses in Wachovia v. Schlegel (pdf copy of the decision available here).  Wachovia sued Robert J. Schlegel and Robert K. Schlegel in the Northern District of Texas for their alleged failure to pay back three loans totaling $19 million.  The Schlegels ultimately paid back one loan and Wachovia obtained summary judgment on its claims for the other two, with Chief Judge Fitzwater ordering the Schlegels to pay Wachovia $17 million.

Wachovia then filed a motion requesting that the Schlegels be ordered to pay its attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Schlegels’ contractual agreements to pay for fees and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8).

Chief Judge Fitzwater noted that, while the Schlegels initially sought leave to file a response to Wachovia’s fee motion (we note that a party need not file a motion for leave to file a response brief, as a party is entitled to file a response as a matter of right under the Local Rules), they failed to do so.  Finding Wachovia’s motion to be well taken, Chief Judge Fitzwater granted it and ordered the Schlegels to pay Wachovia an additional $259,367.58 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

Wachovia is represented by Matthew Moran and Daniel Kelly, both of Vinson & Elkins LLP.

The Schlegels are represented by Lawrence Friedman and Melissa Kingston, both of Friedman & Feiger LLP.

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Judge Fitzwater | Comments Off on $260,000 in Attorney’s Fees and Expenses Awarded in Wachovia’s Case Against Schlegels

Judge Maloney

Judge Maloney was born in Dallas, Texas, and appointed to the Northern District of Texas in 1985 by President Reagan.  Judge Maloney received his B.B.A. in 1956 from Southern Methodist University and received his law degree in 1960 from Southern Methodist University School of Law.

Following law school, Judge Maloney served from 1961 to 1962 as an Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County.  Thereafter, Judge Maloney was a Partner with Watts, Stallings & Maloney (1962 – 1965); Maloney, Milner & McDowell (1966 – 1975); Maloney & McDowell (1976 – 1978); Maloney & Hardcastle (1979 – 1980); and Maloney & Maloney (1981 – 1984).

Judge Maloney was also a Member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1973 to 1982.

In 1983 until his appointment to the Northern District of Texas, Judge Maloney served as an Associate Justice of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District.

Judge Maloney assumed senior status in 2000.

His chambers are in Dallas, Texas.

Posted in Judge Maloney (Ret.) | Comments Off on Judge Maloney

Judge Fish

Judge Fish was born in Los Angeles, California and appointed to the Northern District of Texas in 1983 by President Reagan.  Judge Fish received his B.A. in 1965 from Yale College, and his LLB in 1968 from Yale Law School.

From 1968 to 1974, Judge Fish served our country in the United States Army Reserve.  From 1968 to 1980, Judge Fish practiced law with McKenzie & Baer in Dallas, Texas.

In 1980, Judge Fish served as the Judge of the 95th Judicial District, Texas District Court.  From 1981 until his appointment to the Northern District of Texas, Jude Fish served as a Judge on the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District.

Judge Fish served as the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas from 2002 to 2007.  In 2007, he assumed senior status.

Judge Fish’s chambers are in Dallas, Texas.

Posted in Judge Fish | Comments Off on Judge Fish

Judge Kinkeade

Judge Kinkeade was born in Denton, Texas, and appointed to the Northern District of Texas in 2002 by President George W. Bush.  Judge Kinkeade received his B.A. in 1973 from Baylor University and his J.D. in 1974 from Baylor University School of Law.

From 1974 to 1975, Judge Kinkeade practiced law as an Associate with Dennis G. Brewer, Inc., and, from 1975 to 1980, as a Partner with Power & Kinkeade.

In 1981, Judge Kinkeade became a Judge on the 194th Judicial District Court in Dallas, Texas, where he remained until 1988.  From 1988 to 2002, he served as a Justice on the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District.

From 1981 to 2002, Judge Kinkeade served as an Adjunct Professor at Texas Wesleyan School of Law.

Judge Kinkeade’s chambers are in Dallas, Texas.

Posted in Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade