The Magistrate Judges discussed how they are typically assigned to cases at the same time as the District Judge is assigned; however, the Magistrate Judges are not assigned to a particular District Judge. They noted how some discovery matters are referred to the Magistrate Judges in the Northern District of Texas, but there is a not a uniform referral practice across the different District Judges.

They also emphasized how they enjoy trying cases and would like the opportunity to try more cases by consent. The Magistrate Judges discussed how they can sometimes provide special settings for trial that the District Judges cannot. This may provide more flexibility for the parties. In terms of handling trial, Hon. Jeff Kaplan discussed how he likes to use jury questionnaires because they often provide more meaningful voir dire.

The Magistrate Judges each then discussed some issues of importance to each of them related to the handling of discovery disputes. Some of the highlights were as follows:

• Hon. Cureton: He encourages face-to-face meeting between the parties to try to resolve discovery issues. He also likes to have hearings to resolve discovery disputes.
• Hon. Toliver: She emphasized that the parties need to really conference before filing a discovery motion. She may sometimes require face-to-face meeting between the parties to narrow issues. One of her “pet peeves” is when parties delay filing motions to compel until the end of the discovery period.
• Hon. Ramirez: She criticized the lack of meaningful briefing when presenting discovery disputes, particularly in terms of raising novel issues of law. She emphasized how the parties need to remember who has the burden on a discovery motion.
• Hon. Kaplan: He has a standing order on non-dispositive motions requiring the parties to attempt to informally resolve discovery disputes, such as through a call with the Court. He also requires a meaningful conference, and the parties then have to submit a joint status report setting forth the arguments related to any discovery dispute. He generally rules on the discovery dispute within 24-48 hours after the joint status report is filed, and he believes that his requirements generally reduce the number of discovery disputes raised in his court.
• Hon. Stickney: He echoed the sentiments of the other Magistrate Judges but also encouraged the attorneys to avoid personal attacks on each other.

Thanks to each of the Magistrate Judges for participating in this panel and providing us with insight into the role of the U.S. Magistrate in the Northern District of Texas.

Email this original Klemchuk Kubasta LLP article to your associates.

©2012 Snipe Hunting in the NDTX. All Rights Reserved.

Judge Rader’s remarks have been circulated in their entirety by several media outlets; however, a few observations are worth noting with regard to how Judge Rader proposes to improve patent litigation.

• Discovery Management/Control. Judge Rader emphasized the need for increased discovery management in order to control costs and encourage efficiency, particularly with respect to electronic discovery. He circulated and discussed a Model Order related to electronic discovery proposed by the Advisory Council for the Federal Circuit. This Model Order provides for the exchange of traditional evidence on accused products and then email discovery could occur with respect to 5 custodians and 5 search terms per custodian. These limits could be exceeded at the requesting party’s own expense (i.e., cost-shifting).

• Summary Judgment. Judge Rader believes that summary judgment may be a tool to clear the congested patent docket, and he encouraged the bar to work with the court to determine if there are 1-2 summary judgments per each case that might be properly brought to end litigation before a trial occurs.

• Transfer Motions. Judge Rader indicated that the new Patent Pilot Program might provide an opportunity for the court and the bar to evaluate venues that could be convenient to the parties. He suggested that a court’s participation in the Patent Pilot Program may become a factor to consider in venue analysis, but it is still up in the air as to how much weight participation in the Program may carry in the venue analysis.

• Early Valuation. Judge Rader noted that not all patents and patent cases are created equal. If the court and the parties can identify the economic value of a case early on, then the timing and procedures for the case may be properly tailored.

Overall, Judge Rader believes that we need to ensure that patent law fosters innovation and the courts should be used for the pursuit of justice. By making improvements to the patent litigation system, Judge Rader believes that the playing field may be more equalized for plaintiffs and defendants going forward. Now it is up to the courts and the patent bar to continue the discussion about the challenges and steps to implementation of some of Chief Judge Rader’s proposals.

Email this original Klemchuk Kubasta LLP article to your associates.

©2012 Snipe Hunting in the NDTX. All Rights Reserved.