In an earlier opinion, the District Court entered summary judgment against the property owners in this foreclosure litigation, finding at least five reasons they could not make out a viable claim for quiet title. Slip op. at 3. The property owners filed a stock motion for reconsideration, arguing that they had raised an issue about the validity of the assignment of the deed of trust. Id. at 4-5. The District Court reiterated that the record showed no basis for disputing that as the holder of the mortgage note the bank could foreclose regardless. Id. at 5-6. Therefore, the District Court denied the motion for new trial or rehearing. Id. at 6.
Judge Yeakel Issues a Claim Construction Order in Patent Dispute over Low-Power, Low-Cost Illuminated Keyboards
The District Court construed three claim terms (after the parties reached agreement on five others), siding with Motorola Mobility in concluding that the first term did not require construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning, id. at 6-8, rejecting both sides’ proposed constructions of the second term, id. at 9-10, and adopting the inventors’ construction of the third term, id. at 10-12. The District Court then ordered the parties to meet and confer “in an attempt to settle this case” before a March 11, 2014 conference at which a schedule for the remainder of the case would be set, absent settlement. Slip op. at 14.
The case provides a reference point for patent litigators to assess their time-to-trial prospects in the Western District versus other venues. The case will have been on file two years at the time of the scheduling conference, meaning the time-to-trial will lag the median in Texas’ other districts; according to recent data, the Southern District median is 2.00 years, the Eastern District median is 2.19, and the Northern District is 2.42. See PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2013 Patent Litigation Study 22 (June 2013). Two favored venues—the Eastern District of Virginia and the Western District of Wisconsin—hover around one year; the national median is 2.35 years. Id. at 21.
Judge Ezra Denies a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion Based on a Late-Filed Opposition Brief and a Motion to Amend
Mata v. United States of America, No. SA:13-CV-220-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2014)(Ezra, J.)
Mata is an employee of a government contractor that stocks Coca-Cola products at Lakeland Air Force Base. She was hurt while stocking 12-packs at the Troop Mall and blamed the work of another government contractor for the incident. Slip op. at 2. Her suit against the government drew a motion to dismiss. Id. at 3. She did not respond to the motion until nearly two months after the deadline, but then moved for leave to respond (with the response attached) and moved for leave to amend her complaint. Id. The District Court concluded that the lawyer’s supposed confusion over the deadline did not amount to an extenuating circumstance, but that the other factors—length of delay, egregiousness of the failure, disruption of the docket, and prejudice—weighed in favor of leave. Id. at 4-6. Furthermore, the District Court allowed her to amend her complaint on many of the same considerations, along with the fact that the amended pleading addressed the government’s primary defense—that the responsible party was another independent contractor. Id. at 6-14.