Winstead

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases150

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

winstead-pc

winstead.com

Practice Areas

Comp. Arch. and SoftwareSoftware, SecurityTransport., E-Comm.

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
09/18/24	Broadcom Corp v. Netflix Inc 3:20-CV-04677 ( N.D. CA )	STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byBroadcom Corporation. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1)(Reichman, Courtland) (Filed on 9/18/2024) (Entered: 09/18/2024)
08/26/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing regarding the parties' pending discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and having already resolved the disputes raised by Plaintiff, (see D.I. 98), hereby ORDERS that it will resolve the remaining disputes Defendant brings on the papers and that today's videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mlc) (Entered: 08/26/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing regarding the parties' pending discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and having already resolved the disputes raised by Plaintiff, (see D.I. 98), hereby ORDERS that it will resolve the remaining disputes Defendant brings on the papers and that today's videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mlc) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/27/24	Digitaldoors Inc v. Comerica Bank 2:23-CV-00541 ( E.D. TX )	ORDER granting (73 in 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to BOKF, N.A. (Consolidated from 2:23-cv-545) Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the abovecaptioned Member Case between Plaintiff and Defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/26/2024. (CH) (Entered: 08/27/2024) ORDER granting (73 in 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to BOKF, N.A. (Consolidated from 2:23-cv-545) Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the abovecaptioned Member Case between Plaintiff and Defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/26/2024. (CH) (Entered: 08/27/2024)
08/26/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of 1) Mr. Lefebvre's Disclosure of Responsive Claim Constructions; and 2) Plaintiff Dale Lefebvre's First Supplemental Response and Objections to Defendant Extrabux, Inc.'s Interrogatory No. 6 filed by Dale LeFebvre.(Keith, Colin) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/26/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute Motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and the briefing related to the disputes raised by Defendant ("Defendant's disputes"), (D.I. 63 ; D.I. 66 ; D.I. 70 ), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Defendant's disputes: (1) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 1, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to respond to Defendant's Interrogatory ("ROG") No. 6 (wherein Defendant requests that Plaintiff identify, inter alia, the "construction of each claim limitation [Plaintiff] applied" in preparing infringement contentions (such as those used in a pre-suit notice letter, in the Complaint and in contentions Plaintiff submitted in February 2024), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 10), the request is DENIED. The Court agrees with Defendant that such claim construction positions can be relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. And it is not sure that it agrees with Plaintiff that such a request can never be appropriate simply because the Scheduling Order also includes a process for the exchange of disputed claim terms, leading to Markman briefing. (D.I. 66 at 1-2) There might be some scenarios where an early, targeted ROG asking for a party's claim construction position on a particular term or terms, well in advance of the Markman process, could make sense from a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 perspective. For now, the Court will deny the request simply because the ROG, as written, is certainly unduly overbroad and burdensome. It literally asks for Plaintiff's position on the meaning of every single word in every single claim limitation in every single claim at issue in the prior contentions (along with supporting intrinsic evidence). Since there is no way that all such claim term "constructions" could possibly be the subject of real, live disputes in this case relating to infringement or validity, the Court is not going to make Plaintiff respond to the ROG as written. If there is some more targeted claim construction position (e.g., as to one or two particular claim terms) that Plaintiff took in the past that Defendant thinks is particularly important, then Defendant can discuss narrowing the focus of the ROG with Plaintiff, and if Plaintiff does not agree to respond to that narrowed focus, Defendant can take the issue up with the Court in the future.; (2) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 2, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to substantively respond to Defendant's ROG No. 8 (which asks Plaintiff to provide its view as to who is a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") as it relates to this action, along with other POSITA-related information), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 12), the request is GRANTED. The information is relevant to this case, and not just to the claim construction process (as Plaintiff seems to suggest), (D.I. 66 at 2), but to lots of potential liability issues, (D.I. 70 at 1). This ROG should have been answered long ago. Plaintiff will further supplement its response to the ROG by no later than 10 days from today's date, absent further order of the Court to the contrary.; and (3) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 3, in which it seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to search for and produce documents responsive to various requests for production ("RFPs") without Plaintiff imposing "improper unilateral search restrictions[,]" (D.I. 63 at 2-3), the Court will accept Plaintiffs clear assertion that even were it to have removed its objections to the RFPs, any further responsive documents "do not exist[,]" (D.I. 66 at 2-3). Thus, the request is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mpb) (Entered: 08/26/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute Motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and the briefing related to the disputes raised by Defendant ("Defendant's disputes"), (D.I. 63 ; D.I. 66 ; D.I. 70 ), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Defendant's disputes: (1) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 1, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to respond to Defendant's Interrogatory ("ROG") No. 6 (wherein Defendant requests that Plaintiff identify, inter alia, the "construction of each claim limitation [Plaintiff] applied" in preparing infringement contentions (such as those used in a pre-suit notice letter, in the Complaint and in contentions Plaintiff submitted in February 2024), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 10), the request is DENIED. The Court agrees with Defendant that such claim construction positions can be relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. And it is not sure that it agrees with Plaintiff that such a request can never be appropriate simply because the Scheduling Order also includes a process for the exchange of disputed claim terms, leading to Markman briefing. (D.I. 66 at 1-2) There might be some scenarios where an early, targeted ROG asking for a party's claim construction position on a particular term or terms, well in advance of the Markman process, could make sense from a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 perspective. For now, the Court will deny the request simply because the ROG, as written, is certainly unduly overbroad and burdensome. It literally asks for Plaintiff's position on the meaning of every single word in every single claim limitation in every single claim at issue in the prior contentions (along with supporting intrinsic evidence). Since there is no way that all such claim term "constructions" could possibly be the subject of real, live disputes in this case relating to infringement or validity, the Court is not going to make Plaintiff respond to the ROG as written. If there is some more targeted claim construction position (e.g., as to one or two particular claim terms) that Plaintiff took in the past that Defendant thinks is particularly important, then Defendant can discuss narrowing the focus of the ROG with Plaintiff, and if Plaintiff does not agree to respond to that narrowed focus, Defendant can take the issue up with the Court in the future.; (2) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 2, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to substantively respond to Defendant's ROG No. 8 (which asks Plaintiff to provide its view as to who is a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") as it relates to this action, along with other POSITA-related information), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 12), the request is GRANTED. The information is relevant to this case, and not just to the claim construction process (as Plaintiff seems to suggest), (D.I. 66 at 2), but to lots of potential liability issues, (D.I. 70 at 1). This ROG should have been answered long ago. Plaintiff will further supplement its response to the ROG by no later than 10 days from today's date, absent further order of the Court to the contrary.; and (3) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 3, in which it seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to search for and produce documents responsive to various requests for production ("RFPs") without Plaintiff imposing "improper unilateral search restrictions[,]" (D.I. 63 at 2-3), the Court will accept Plaintiffs clear assertion that even were it to have removed its objections to the RFPs, any further responsive documents "do not exist[,]" (D.I. 66 at 2-3). Thus, the request is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mpb) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/21/24	Inhale Inc v. Gravitron LLC 1:18-CV-00762 ( W.D. TX )	Text Order MOOTING 158 Motion to exclude entered by Judge Alan D Albright. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jslc) (Entered: 08/21/2024)
08/21/24	Inhale Inc v. Gravitron LLC 1:18-CV-00762 ( W.D. TX )	Text Order MOOTING 159 Motion to Strike 159 MOTION to Strike 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity entered by Judge Alan D Albright. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jslc) (Entered: 08/21/2024)
08/06/24	Asus Technology Licensing Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 2:23-CV-00409 ( E.D. TX )	REDACTION to 78 Sealed Sur-Reply to Reply to Response to Motion, by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Research America. (Smith, Melissa) (Entered: 08/06/2024)
07/16/24	Well Cell Global LLC v. Calvit 4:22-CV-03062 ( S.D. TX )	STIPULATION re: Abating Deadlines by Shawn Paul Calvit, Insulinic of Lafayette LLC, filed. (Pyle, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2024)
07/16/24	Famous Group Tech Inc v. Cue Audio Inc 3:24-CV-01173 ( N.D. TX )	ELECTRONIC ORDER finding as moot 16 Motion to Stay per 17 Settlement Order. (Ordered by Chief District Judge David C Godbey on 7/16/2024) (chmb) (Entered: 07/16/2024)