IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Similar documents
Case 6:16-cv RWS-JDL Document 209 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 17201

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-84 RWS-JDL v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 45 Filed: 08/03/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:189

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION. v. Case No. 4:17-cv ALM-KPJ

Case 6:12-cv MHS-JDL Document 48 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1365

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv HCM-LRL Document 298 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# FILED

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Locating Burden Of Proof When Patent Venue Is Challenged

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER. Plaintiffs Amax, Inc. ( Amax ) and Worktools, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV DT DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D.

8 Ways To Avoid Inter Partes Review Estoppel

Case 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

of the Magistrate Judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 6:12-cv MHS-CMC Document 1645 Filed 07/22/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20986

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Today s Patent Litigation Venue Considerations

Case 3:10-cv HTW-MTP Document 127 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 7

TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION V. A-13-CA-359 LY

Case 7:14-cv O Document 57 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 996

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-CV-799 DECISION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:17-cv JPO Document 25 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 10

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case4:12-cv JSW Document34 Filed09/19/14 Page1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Patent Litigation in Delaware Post- TC Heartland Thomas F. Fitzpatrick Gregory D. Len Bradley T. Lennie M. Kelly Tillery

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 884 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2 Ways Courts Approach Willful Infringement After Halo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening. Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Factors Affecting Success of Stay Motions Pending Inter Partes & Covered Business Method Review

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case 1:05-cv WMN Document 86 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN

Case 1:11-cv ALC-AJP Document 175 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 5 Please visit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case No IN RE BIGCOMMERCE, INC.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION V. CAUSE NO. 4:09CV455

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. v. Civil No. 6:08-cv-144-LED-JDL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER STAYING CASE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTMCT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Terry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 6:12-cv MHS-CMC Document 1623 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 20778

The Evolution of Nationwide Venue in Patent Infringement Suits

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION O R D E R

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA DKT. #42

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv HSG Document 67 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 111 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ORDER

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD., Plaintiffs, v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, BULBHEAD.COM, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00033 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On August 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued P GT_^ac P]S GTR^\\T]SPcX^] %lg$gm&( recommending that Defendants Telebrands Corp. %lit[tqap]sbm& P]S 8d[QWTPS*R^\ BB9ob %l8d[qwtpsm& %R^[[TRcXeT[h l;tut]sp]cbm& C^cX^] c^ dismiss or transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) be denied. Docket No. 298. Defendants filed objections c^ cwt CPVXbcaPcT AdSVTob G$G* Docket No. 387. Plaintiffs IX]]db <]cta_axbtb( BB9 P]S Mdad( BcS* %lf[px]cxuubm& have filed a response. Docket No. 397. Having conducted a de novo review of ;TUT]SP]cbo written objections, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections are without merit. 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1). Defendants specifically object c^ cwt CPVXbcaPcT AdSVTob UX]SX]V cwpc Defendants waived their RWP[[T]VT c^ et]dt X] cwxb PRcX^] P]S cwpc cwt Hd_aT\T 9^dacob STRXbX^] X] TC Heartland was not an intervening change in law. Docket No. 387 at 3k7.

=Xabc( Pb c^ ;TUT]SP]cbo VT]TaP[ objection that TC Heartland was an intervening change in law, this Court has already held that TC Heartland was not an intervening change in the law. Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00037, 2017 WL 2651618, at *20 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017) report and recommendation adopted by Doc. No. 430 (July 19, -+,2& %liwt 9^dac ]TTS ]^c atprw ;TUT]SP]cbo PaVd\T]c cwpc P RWP]VT X] [Pf R^]bcXcdcTb P] TgRT_cX^] c^ fpxeta d]sta Gd[T,-%W&%,&%7& QTRPdbT cwt Hd_aT\T 9^dacob STRXbX^] X] TC Heartland S^Tb ]^c `dp[xuhm&* EcWTa R^dacb WPeT WT[S cwt bp\t* See In re Hughes Network Sys., LLC, No. 2017-130, 2017 WL 3167522, at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2017) (petition for writ of mandamus denied); 6@UHBN% 1MB& U& /@QLHM 1MSZK% 1MB., No. 2:16-CV-190, 2017 WL 2957882, at *2 %<*;* ITg* Ad[h,,( -+,2& %ln8otrpdbt TC Heartland does not qualify as an intervening change of [Pf( cwxb fpxeta Xb ]^c TgRdbTS*m&6 Orthosie Sys., LLC v. Synovia Solutions, LLC, No. 4:16-CV- 00995, 2017 WL 3244244, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2017); ilife Techs. Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-4987, 2017 WL 2778006, at '2 %D*;* ITg* Ad]T -2( -+,2& %ltc Heartland S^Tb ]^c `dp[xuh Pb P] X]cTaeT]X]V RWP]VT X] [Pf*m&6 In re Nintendo of America Inc., No. 2017-127, Slip. Op., Doc. No. 30, at 3 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2017) (petition for writ of mandamus denied); Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-21, 2017 WL 2556679, at *3 %<*;* KP* Ad]T 2( -+,2& %ltc Heartland does not qualify for the intervening law exception to waiver because it merely affirms the viability of Fourco*m&6 In re Sea Ray Boats, Inc., Case No. 2017-124, Dkt. 15, Slip Op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2017) (petition for writ of mandamus denied); Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., No. 16 C 6097, 2017 WL 3205772, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2017) %lcwt 9^dac U^[[^fb Elbit and Cobalt Boats... in finding that TC Heartland did ]^c at_atbt]c P RWP]VT X] cwt [Pf cwpc f^d[s TgRdbT fpxeta d]sta cwtbt RXaRd\bcP]RTb*m&; In re Techtronic Indus. North America, Inc. et al., No. 2017-125, Slip. Op., Doc. No. 25, at 3 (Fed. Cir. Rcig!3!qh!6

July 25, 2017) (petition for writ of mandamus denied); Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Sys., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-113, Slip. Op., Doc. No. 113, at 6 (S.D. Tex. July 26, 2017); Skyhawke Techs., LLC v.,-+) 1MSZK +NQO& DS @K., No. 3:10-CV-708T-SL-RHW, 2017 WL 3132066, at *2 (S.D. Miss. July 21, 2017); Koninklijke Philips v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 1:15-cv-1125-GMS, Slip. Op., Doc. No. 215, at 10 (D. Del. July 19, 2017); Fox Factory, Inc., v. SRAM, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-506- WHO, Slip. Op., Doc. No. 72, at 5 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2017); ;DDANJ 1MSZK 4SC&% DS @K& U& =;* Acquisitions LLC, et al., No. 3:16-CV-1618-SI, 2017 WL 3016034, at *3 (D. Or. July 14, 2017) %lcwt STUT]bT ^U X\_a^_Ta et]dt fpb ]^c nd]pepx[pq[to c^ ;TUT]SP]cb QTU^aT cwt Hd_aT\T 9^dac issued its decision in TC Heartland*m&6 Infogation Corp. v. HTC Corp., No. 16-CV-01902-H-JLB, -+,2 LB -3142,2( Pc '/ %H*;* 9P[* Ad[h 0( -+,2& %lniowt Hd_aT\T 9^dacob STRXbX^] X] TC Heartland does not excuse ;TUT]SP]cbo fpxeta Pb c^ et]dt X] cwxb ;XbcaXRc*m&6 Amax, Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp., No. CV 16-10695-NMG, 2017 WL 2818986, at *2 (D. Mass. June 29, 2017) %lstut]sp]cob R^]cT]cX^] cwpc P] ^QYTRcX^] c^ X\_a^_Ta et]dt d]sta -3 J*H*9* i,/++%q& fpb previously d]pepx[pq[t Xb X]R^aaTRc*m&; Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Prods. LLC, No. 3:12-cv- 755, Slip. Op. (N.D. Miss. August 7, 2017) (same); Jarratt v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:16-CV- 05302, 2017 WL 3437782, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 10, 2017) %ltc Heartlandjmerely reiterates Supreme Court precedent from Fourco... which was erroneously rejected by the Federal Circuit.m&* IWTaTU^aT( ;TUT]SP]cbo general objection is OVERRULED. GTVPaSX]V cwt CPVXbcaPcT AdSVTob UX]SX]V ^U waiver, Defendants object because they contend that they filed the instant motion five months before trial. Docket No. 387 at 7. The Magistrate Judge found that during the time period in which Telebrands had repeatedly admitted venue was proper in this District, the Court had conducted lengthy injunction proceedings, resolved several discovery disputes, and completed claim construction. Docket No. 359 at 8. The Rcig!4!qh!6

Court agrees that this continuous conduct without any objection to venue constitutes waiver. See Koninklijke Philips v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 1:15-cv-1125-GMS, at *8 (D. Del. July 19, -+,2& %UX]SX]V STUT]SP]cbo R^]SdRc fpxets P]h et]dt STUT]bT fwtat STUT]SP]cb l%,& _PacXRX_PcTS in a scheduling conference; (2) conducted discovery, (3) entered into a stipulation and protective order with the plaintiff; and (4) moved the court to allow their out of state counsel to appear pro hac vice*m&6 Infogation Corp. v. HTC Corp., No. 16-CV-01902-H-JLB, 2017 WL 2869717, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (finding defendants waived any challenge to venue through litigation R^]SdRc Qh _PacXRX_PcX]V X] [XcXVPcX^] U^a lp a^gx\pct[h P htpa( X]R[dSX]V Qh btaex]v X]eP[XSXch contentions, filing two motions to stay, filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and _PacXRX_PcX]V X] R[PX\ R^]bcadRcX^]*m&* Moreover, even if Defendants are correct that the defense was not available to them at those times, the Magistrate Judge further found that after filing its motion to dismiss, Telebrands continued to seek affirmative relief from the Court. See Docket No. 359 at 8, citing Docket No. 324. ;TUT]SP]cb PSSXcX^]P[[h ^QYTRc c^ cwt CPVXbcaPcT AdSVTob at[xp]rt ^] cwt UX[X]V ^U affirmative counterclaims to support a finding of waiver. Docket No. 387 at 8. Defendants cite an alleged contradictory decision from the Magistrate Judge in Blue Spike, LLC v. Contixo Inc., No. 6:16cv1220, 2017 WL 3172425, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2017). Defendants are incorrect in citing Blue Spike Pb R^]caPSXRc^ah P]S X] P [hx]v cwt 9^dacob UX]SX]Vb cwtatx]* @] Blue Spike, the Court found that, as a general matter, counterclaims alone are likely insufficient to constitute waiver fwtat lp _Pach WPb ^cwtafxbt _atbtaets Xcb et]dt ^QYTRcX^]*m Id. Indeed, in that case, Visual Land, Inc. had denied venue was proper in its initial answer while filing counterclaims. Id. at *1. Here, as the Magistrate Judge explained, Telebrands repeatedly admitted venue was proper while asserting affirmative counterclaims. Docket No. 359 at 7, citing Docket Nos. 26, 139, 145 Rcig!5!qh!6