Cases

FOGEL, District Judge. Wells Fargo & Company (“WFC”) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denying Appellants’ motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration litigation brought by Datatreasury Corp. *1370(“Appellee”)- This Court heard oral argument on November

ORDER FOLSOM, District Judge. Before the Court is the Motion of Defendants EDS, Harris, Key, PNC, and Suntrust to Sever and Stay the Claims Relating to the Ballard Patents Pending Reexamination of the Ballard Patents (Dkt. No. 260). Most of the remaining defendants join in this motion. Dkt. Nos. 262, *752263, 267, 271, 272, 273, 278, 281

758 F.Supp.2d 382 (2010) DATATREASURY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-72 DF. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. September 27, 2010. *383 Michael T. McLemore, Houston, TX, pro se. Nelson James Roach, David Neil Smith, Derek Tod Gill

490 F.Supp.2d 756 (2007) DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al., Defendants. No. 2:06-CV-72-DF. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. April 24, 2007. *757 *758 Edward Lewis Hohn, Edward K. Chin, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, Rodney Allyn Coope

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT April 22, 2008 ERRATA Appeal No. 2007-1317 DATATREASURY CORP. V. WELLS FARGO & CO. Decided: April 16, 2008 Precedential Opinion Please make the following change: Page 2, line 13: The text currently reads: “Appellants’ motion to dismiss or stay litigation pending arbitration” Please reorder the wording so that it re

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1317 DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellants, and BANK OF AMERICA

490 F.Supp.2d 749 (2006) DATATREASURY CORP., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & CO., et al., Defendants. No. 2:06-CV-72-DF. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. October 25, 2006. Edward Lewis Hohn, Edward K. Chine, Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP - Irving, Irving, TX, Anthony Kyle Bruster, Charles Cary Patterson, Louis Brady Paddock, Richard Ben

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3800 ___________ Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Synoran, LLC (Synoran)1 and WMR e-Pin LLC (e-Pin) appeal from the district court’s2 confirmation of an arbitration *704award of $1,865 million in favor of Wells Fargo, N.A., which had prevailed on its claims for breach of contract and for misappropriation of trade secrets. Appellants mai

753 F.Supp.2d 662 (2010) CLEAR WITH COMPUTERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BERGDORF GOODMAN, INC., et al., Defendants. Clear With Computers, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Defendant. Case Nos. 6:09CV481 (LEAD), 6:09CV95, 6:09 CV 479. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. November 29, 2010. Andrew W. Spangler, Spangler Law PC,

727 F.Supp.2d 543 (2010) REEDHYCALOG UK, LTD. and ReedHycalog, LP, Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND INNOVATIONS INC., Defendant. Case No. 6:08-CV-325. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. August 2, 2010. *544 Danny Lloyd Williams (lead attorney), Christopher Needham Cravey, David Wynne Morehan, J. Mike Amerson, James A

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. DYK, Circuit Judge. Promega Corporation (“Promega”) appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granting Invitrogen IP Holdings, Inc.’s (“IP Holdings”) motion to compel arbitration. Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp., No. 10-cv-281 (W.D.Wis. Feb.

792 F.Supp.2d 87 (2011) GRYPHON NETWORKS CORP., Plaintiff, v. CONTACT CENTER COMPLIANCE CORP., Michael Kovatch and David Keim, Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-10258-MBB. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. June 13, 2011. *88 Thomas J. Clark, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, Frank N. Gaeta, David Glod, Rich May, a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 170), filed May 23, 2011, urging this Court to compel the production of draft license agreements and communications regarding license negotiations between Plaintiff Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. (“Hill”) and any third party entered into to resolve past claims under t

611 F.Supp.2d 647 (2009) BARTEX RESEARCH, LLC v. FEDEX CORP., et al. Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-385. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. April 20, 2009. *648 Thomas John Ward, Jr., Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview, TX, David J. Sheikh, Dina M. Hayes, Paul C. Gibbons, Raymond P. Niro, Richard B. Megley, Jr.,

(2008) PREMIER INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES LLC, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., et al., Defendants. Premier International Associates LLC, Plaintiff, v. Microsoft Corp., et al., Defendants. Civil Action Nos. 2:07-CV-395 (DF), 2:07-CV-396 (DF). United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. May 19, 2008. ORDER DAVID FO

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER T. JOHN WARD, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Mondis Technology, Ltd.’s (“Mondis”) motion for supplemental damages for 2011 sales and for an ongoing royalty rate. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 The Court *642GRANTS-in-part and DENIES-in-part Mondis’s motion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL JAMES E. SEIBERT, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Crane Co.’s (“Crane”) Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff Automated Merchandising Systems (“AMS”) filed on September 19, 2011.1 The Court held an evidentiary hearing and ar

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are the following motions: *843• Defendant Apple Inc.'s ("Apple") Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages (Docket No. 1018);1 • Apple's Rule 50(a) Motion for Judgme

Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc. No. 183]; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc. No. 170].) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is granted, and Defendants' motion is denied. II. BACKGROUND