by Lee Gesmer | May 20, 2008 | Miscellaneous
Here is an example of just how complex electronic discovery can become when the stakes are high, and the lawyers are prepared to negotiate an extremely detailed discovery protocol. This document is from the ConnectU v. Facebook litigation, in which ConnectU alleges that the founders of Facebook misappropriated ConnectU ideas and technology. The Order is signed by Magistrate Collings, who is known to be one of the most experienced and sophisticated judges in the Federal District of Massachusetts when it comes to issues of electronic discovery. I’m sure that even he was challenged by this document.
Link to the order here.
by Lee Gesmer | May 19, 2008 | Courts, What Were They Thinking
You may recall the brouhaha that arose last year when a Massachusetts state district court judge vacated a prior state court conviction in order to mitigate the impact that the conviction would have on the defendant under the federal sentencing guidelines in an upcoming sentencing in federal court. The defendant, Matthew West, was due to be sentenced in federal court by Judge Young later the same day. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, the existence or non-existence of a prior conviction made a huge difference in how much time West would be required to serve under the guidelines. Hence the urgency (on the part of West) in getting the earlier conviction vacated so it wouldn’t be counted against him.
The whole bizarre story is described here. You may recall that after that story broke the judge was the subject of massive public criticism (think talk radio, Boston Herald). She ended up in the emergency room with chest pains, and upon recovering she changed her mind and reinstated the conviction. Wow. Being a judge in Massachusett is very stressful. (For another example of just how stressful, click here).
Now Massachusetts Federal District Court Judge William Young has used his sentencing memorandum in the Matthew West case to expound his views on the legislative and judicial history behind the guidelines. This 35 page memorandum, available here, is a brilliant, exhaustively researched and opinionated discussion of the extraordinarily controversial issues associated with mandatory sentencing guidelines. Suffice it to say, Judge Young was no fan of this law (which was demoted from “mandatory” to “advisory” by the Supreme Court in 2005 in Booker v. United States and subsequent cases), and he is highly critical of the law, even as it is applied post-Booker.
As a sordid bonus, the memorandum includes the 15 page transcript of the hearing before the state court judge at which West’s state conviction was vacated, including the famous quote from the judge, “Tell him it was an early Christmas present.” The question of who said this is likely to be a trivia question for Massachusetts lawyers for years to come. The answer: Justice Diane Moriarity.
by Lee Gesmer | May 8, 2008 | Courts, Trademark
What does it mean when a contract requires that notice be given “in hand”? Believe it or not, despite over 225 years of Massachusetts jurisprudence, until now no Massachusetts court had ever considered this question. In McMann v. McGowan, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 513 (2008), decided on April 7, 2008, the Appeals Court held that “in hand” means delivery into the hand of an authorized receipient. The Court rejected the argument that “in hand” includes delivery by hand, the position argued by the losing party. Of such things the law is built.
Everyone knows that false or deceptive advertising is illegal, but a recent decision by Superior Court Judge Thayer Fremont-Smith provides a reminder of how difficult it is for a competitor allegedly harmed by false advertising to prove actual harm and damages, except in the rare case where there are only two firms in the market. Where there are more than two competitors, as Judge Fremont-Smith points out, “it cannot confidently be inferred that any customers procured by defendants’s false advertising were at plaintiffs’ expense.” While not dismissing the case outright, recovering any damages looks like a steep uphill fight for the plaintiff in this case. IDT Telecom v. Voice Distributors, Middlesex Superior Court, April 11, 2008.
by Lee Gesmer | May 6, 2008 | Courts, Patents
A postcript on my last posting regarding the so-called “rocket docket” in the Eastern District of Texas. Our firm is counsel for a client in a patent suit filed in Marshall, Texas (the very heart of darkness for patent defendants, some would say) on November 2, 2007. To date (more than six months later), the Court has yet to schedule the initial case management conference which, under the local patent rules, is the “kick off” event for patent cases in EDtTx. To date, there has been almost no activity in the case apart from the filing of answers and a motion to dismiss (not yet acted on) by one of the defendants.
by Lee Gesmer | May 6, 2008 | Courts, Patents
“a renegade jurisdiction”
Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to Marshall, Texas, during oral argument in eBay v. Mercexchange
______________________
There are all kinds of bubbles – stocks, commodities, housing, tulip bulbs, and even litigation. The Eastern District of Texas (EDtTx) has been the scene of a patent law bubble for the last seven years. However, like all bubbles, it can’t last forever, and it’s only a matter of time before this one pops.
The patent litigation history of EDtTx and the causa sine qua non of its popularity in with the plaintiff’s patent bar, Judge T. John Ward, are described in detail is an excellent article in the March issue of the American Lawyer. The article, titled “Taming Texas” and written by Nate Raymond, describes how Judge Ward nurtured the patent practice in Texas with a “rocket docket” and the support of pro-plaintiff jurors who are strongly partial to the protection of property rights. Among the highlights of the story:
- As of 2007, there had not been a defense win in a patent infringement case the district in three years. From 2001 to mid-2006 plaintiffs had won 90% of the district’s patent trials.
- The flood of patent cases in EDtTx has created an economic boom in the services industries (hotels, restaurants), and of course in the legal profession. Many lawyers who formerly focused on “PI” (personal injury) now focus on “IP” (intellectual property).
- Patent reform working its way through Congress would tighten the venue requirements for patent cases, and dramatically reduce the ability to file cases in ED Tex. The article has a sidebar titled “Waiting for the End of the World,” which describes the economic apprehension created by this proposed legislation. Of course, the local lawyers are nervous as well, and they are lobbying against any change.
- 860 patent cases have been filed in EDtTx since 2000, 350 in 2007 alone.
- East Texas judges are disinclined to grant summary judgment (meaning that cases are more likely to go to trial).
Of course, no trend can continue forever, and the pendulum appears to be swinging the other way in the last year, with a number of defense verdicts. More importantly, lawyers from outside Texas have learned what it takes to win there:
- First and foremost, it’s important to hire strong local counsel, and use them aggressively during trial. They can “talk Texan,” something that’s hard to do if you weren’t born and raised there. And local counsel doesn’t mean lawyers from Houston or Dallas – it means “country lawyers” from EDtTx.
- Second, jury consultants are particularly helpful in helping lawyers streamline these cases, and make them comprehensible.
Of course, every bubble contains the seeds of its own destruction, and the very thing that made EDtTx so successful is now contributing to its downfall. With a huge number of case filings, the district cannot maintain its reputation as a “rocket docket” that moves cases quickly to trial (something that plaintiff’s lawyers, who are often on a contingent fee, appreciate – inevitably, the faster the case moves, the less money is spent on it). 350 patent cases were filed in the district in 2007, and EDtTx is now the busiest patent district in the nation. In terms of speed, however, it has fallen to 18th, according to LegalMetric, a litigation analysis firm.
The American Lawyer article ends with a sobering warning – even if Congress does tighten up the venue requirements, litigation in EDtTx will not come to a standstill – lawyers are filing cases aggressively to be sure to “grandfather” them in under the current rules. The cases being filed today will precede any changes in the law, and be with us for years to come.
