Independent Capital Management, LLC et. al. v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792 (Dallas, App. - 2009) (reversing a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court)
In accordance with Section 65.011 of the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code (a) Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief from this Court as a result of the actions committed by Defendants ICAP and ASSOCIATES,...
MGE UPS Systems, Inc. v. Titan Specialized et. al. ($27 Million contempt Judgment)
First, the Court concludes that words "all" and "any" software or "any" data disk "used to service or "establish a communications link" include all MGE software and data disks in JTP's possession or control regardless of the source.
Second, after the July 20th injunction JTP continued to retain and use MGE's software. It is undisputed that Cason kept a copy of this software for the purpose of using the software in JTP's business.
Third, the MGE software remains on JTP's computers and JTP personnel continued to utilize the MGE software and Data Disk after the injunction.
Fourth, the Court finds that JTP failed to impound "any" Data Disks in JTP's possession, as regained by this Court's July 16, 2004 order. JTP continued to use MGE's Data Disk from July 16, 2004 injunction order, until March 22, 2004.
In sum, the Court finds that JTP has committed these separate and on-going violations of this Court's July 16, 2004 Injunction Order for which sanctions are necessary and appropriate.
Donald Hugh Henley v. Dillards Department Stores, 46 F. Supp.2d 587 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (representing recording artist Don Henley)
Musician brought action against department store operator for inter alia, invasion of right of publicity. Musician moved for partial summary judgment. The District Court, Solis, J., held that musician's right of publicity was violated by clothing advertisement.
MGE v. Fakouri, 2004 WL 2187143 (N.D. Tex.) (order granting preliminary injunction in copyright case)
Pending before the Court is plaintiff MGE UPS Systems, Inc. ("MGE")'s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed June 16, 2004. Having carefully considered the motion, response, reply, the evidence submitted, and the testimony presented at the hearing on September 8, 2004, and September 10, the Court concludes that MGE's motion should be PARTIALLY GRANTED.
MGE v. Fakouri, 2006 WL 680513 (N.D. Tex.) (order denying motions to strike)
Pending before the Court are three motions to strike filed by the parties:
(1) defendants Fakouri
Electrical Engineering, Inc., Michael I. Khalil, and
Eldrick Lee Lofton's motion to strike plaintiff
MGE UPS Systems, Inc.'s expert testimony;
(2) MGE's objections to and
motion to strike the Fakouri defendants' summary-judgment
evidence and evidence filed in support of
its motion to strike;
and
(3) the Fakouri defendants' motion to strike
MGE's summary-judgment evidence.
After consideration, the Court DENIES the motions.
MGE v. Fakouri, 422 F. Supp.2d 724 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (order on summary judgment motions)
Background: Manufacturer of uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) systems sued its competitors and former employees for copyright infringement, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), trademark infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with existing contracts, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, conspiracy, conversion, and unfair competition. All parties moved for summary judgment.
Kirsch v. Uncle Julio's Corp. et. al., slip op., No. 3:02-CV-1583-K (representing Uncle Julio's Corp.)
Before the Court is defendants' joint request for attorneys' fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, the Joint Pretrial Order and as part of an oral motion made at the conclusion of trial on July 17, 2003. The Court conducted a hearing on the request for attorneys' fees on August 1, 2003, and as part of the hearing, considered plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Attorneys' Fees, filed July 31, 2003, defendants' Reply filed August 1, 2003, the testimony of Stephen A. Kennedy, Esq. of Warren & Kennedy, LLP (a qualified expert on attorneys' fees), certain trial exhibits admitted with no objection, and the argument of counsel for all parties.
For the reasons specified below, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants' request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $641,317.20.
PMI Photomagic v. Foto Fantasy, 60 Fed. Appx. 319, 2003 WL 722181 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (representing PMI Photomagic)
Patentee brought patent infringement suit against alleged infringer based on their similar automated photo booth systems that depicted the user in various "fun" background settings. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted partial summary judgment in favor of alleged infringer, and patentee appealed. The Court of Appeals, Prost, Circuit Judge, held that patent claim limitations did not require two monitors which displayed different images at the same time.
Vacated and remanded.
KIS, S.A. et. al. v. Foto Fantasy, Inc., et.al., 204 F. Supp.2d 968 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (representing KIS, S.A.)
Photo booth operator sued competitor for unfair trade practices. On defendant's motion to exclude testimony of plaintiff's expert, the District Court, Lynn, J., held that:
(1) expert used adequate survey universe;
(2) survey questions were not improperly leading; and
(3) survey adequately mirrored market conditions.
Motion denied.
Image Dynamics et. al. v. Foto Fantasy, Inc., et al., 240 F. Supp.2d 608 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (representing Image Dynamics)
Photo booth manufacturer sued competitor for false endorsement and attempted monopolization. The District Court, Lynn, J., he1d that:
(1) plaintiff lacked standing to assert false endorsement claim, and
(2) defendant did not engage in attempted monopolization.
Judgment for defendant.
Service Asset Management Co. v. Hibernia Corp., 80 F. Supp.2d 626 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (representing Service Asset Management Company)
Investment banking company sued customers in state court, alleging that it was not paid for services it had rendered. Investment banking firm that subsequently was added as defendant asserted cross-claims against customers, also alleging nonpayment for services rendered. After company's claims were dismissed, customers removed action. Firm moved for remand and for costs. The District Court, Schell, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) date of original complaint governed availability of removal as to cross-claims;
(2) substantial repleading exception did not apply; and
(3) firm was entitled to award of costs and fees.
Motion granted.