Federal Judiciary

Patent Case Transferred to a Great American in San Antonio

By Michael Smith

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Bluesky Medical Group, Inc., 2008 WL 151276, E.D.Tex., January 15, 2008 (NO. CIV.A. 2:07-CV-188)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to a Great American GRANTED
This action is the second patent infringement lawsuit between the parties that pertains to wound care therapy.  The first case was filed on August 28, 2003, in the Western District of Texas-San Antonio Division, and was assigned to the Judge Royal Furgeson (pictured).
A brief aside about Judge Furgeson who is, as all who know him will attest, a great American.  "Jurors have baked cakes for him, seven organizations have elected him president, and many more have honored him with awards," the State Bar of Texas recently said, "the latest being the Spirit of Excellence Award from the American Bar Association Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession."  (And that was four years ago - more recently he's led the fight for adequate funding for our federal courts in Washington D.C.). ?There are few jurists who embody the spirit and purpose of this award as much as Judge Furgeson,? said Carolyn King, then-chief judge of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (and also another great American - who, by the way, understands mandamus standards in a way that, well, anyone who bothered to read the law would). ?I firmly believe that in every case and in every trial, Judge Furgeson has impacted the way lawyers, jurors, and defendants view and respect the rule of law.?
Judge Furgeson graduated with a degree in English from Texas Tech University, where he played basketball and was president of the student body (hmm - Judge Ward graduated from Tech as well.  Odd that he consistently misspells Judge Furgeson's name as "Ferguson"). He entered the University of Texas School of Law, graduating with honors. After two years in the U.S. Army, where he attained the rank of captain and received a Bronze Star for Meritorious Service while in Vietnam, Furgeson returned to Lubbock to clerk for U.S. District Judge Halbert O. Woodward.
But I digress.  (Sorry - Judge Furgeson is just one of my favorite people.  Did I mention he's a great American?  And he's almost as good as our Eastern District judges.  Really).
In the first lawsuit, the plaintiffs accused BlueSky Medical's Versatile 1 System of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,636,643,  5,645,081, and  4,969,880.  In the first trial, Judge Furgeson engaged in substantial pretrial activity that included presiding over two separate Markman hearings. On August 3, 2006, at the end of a twenty-two day trial (which apparently they have in the Western District - I can just see the criminal defendants backing up in the stairwells), the jury in the first lawsuit found the plaintiffs' patents valid and not infringed by the defendants. Judge Furgeson entered final judgment in the first lawsuit on August 29, 2006, and all parties thereafter filed appeals to the Federal Circuit.
On May 15, 2007, which is the day the '651 patent issued, the plaintiffs filed the present action in Marshall. The '651 patent is a continuation of the application that issued as the '643 patent, and is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '081 patent. In the Marshall action, the plaintiffs accuse BlueSky's Versatile 1 System and BlueSky's VISTA System, which are similar technology to the Versatile 1 System accused of infringement in the prior case, of infringing the '651 patent.
On May 23, 2007, BlueSky filed a declaratory judgment action on the '651 patent in the Western District of Texas-San Antonio Division.  This action was assigned to Judge Furgeson, who stayed the case pending resolution of the motion to transfer by Judge Ward. See BlueSky Medical Group, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-454 (W.D.Tex. Oct. 11, 2007).
"Although the private interest factors in this case are neutral," Judge Ward wrote, "the public interest factors overwhelmingly favor a transfer. . . . Judge Ferguson has substantial experience with these parties, and has invested time and effort in learning the technology at issue in the case. Judicial economy therefore supports the transfer of this action as well."  Accordingly, he transferred the case to Judge "Ferguson". 

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on February 12, 2008 (boomark / email).