Are you Smarter than a Legislation Pupil? (Civil Process Version)

The next comes from my 2022 Civil Process I Examination. – Dennis

Introduction: Dryson makes a “hair wand” that kinds because it dries.  The corporate additionally owns a design patent masking the product. In 2021, three completely different rivals began promoting comparable merchandise. Dryson is contemplating suing all of them collectively in a single lawsuit to be filed W.D. Tex. Federal Court docket. The motion would allege each (1) Federal Patent Infringement; and (2) Unfair Competitors (based mostly upon Texas state legislation).  One observe, Dryson’s attorneys believes that it has a great declare of Patent Infringement in opposition to all three events, however the Unfair Competitors declare would solely be filed in opposition to two of the defendants.

1. Do the principles allow Dryson to file a single lawsuit that features all these events/claims? (Is Dryson required to deliver all of them collectively in a single motion?)

Extra details for subsequent query: Dryson filed the motion as famous above. One of many defendants (Amaxon) sells the accused product, however doesn’t truly manufacture the product.  Somewhat, Amaxon sells a product manufactured by Revloon. As a part of their deal, Revloon agreed to indemnify Amaxon for any losses if the product seems to be infringing on mental property owned by a 3rd celebration.

2. The principles of Civil Process present completely different ways in which Revloon might develop into a part of the lawsuit. Determine them and clarify how it might work.

Extra details for subsequent couple of questions: When Amaxon first began promoting the Revloon product, the corporate carried out a “freedom-to-operate” search.  To this finish, Amaxon employed an lawyer (Crunch) to opine on whether or not the knock-off model infringed anybody’s mental property rights. Crunch employed a technical skilled to look by way of patent workplace data. The technical skilled created a Technical Report exhibiting a number of patents and emblems that had been implicated. Crunch then used that Technical Report back to draft an Opinion Letter stating that: “Amaxon is infringing Dryson’s IP rights.” Regardless of the opinion letter, Amaxon determined that the income had been too profitable and determined to maintain promoting the product. All of this occurred earlier than Dyson sued or threatened to sue.

Later, throughout litigation, Dryson submitted a request to Amaxon looking for discovery of paperwork held by Amaxon that relate to Dryson’s mental property.  Amaxon recognized  the Technical Report and Opinion Letter as responsive, and added them to its Privilege Log. However, Amaxon indicated that it might not disclose their contents to Dryson.  Dryson is within the paperwork as a result of proof of willful infringement can result in treble damages.

3. After trying to barter to resolve the invention dispute, Dryson filed a movement to compel – looking for an order requiring Amaxon to turn-over the 2 paperwork. How ought to the Choose rule?  

4. Assume that the courtroom granted the movement to compel and ordered Amaxon to offer the requested paperwork. Can Amaxon attraction that order?

5. The case is headed to trial. What info would assist you recognize whether or not the courtroom will maintain a bench trial or a jury trial (clarify)?

Extra details for subsequent query: Dryson’s product has an issue.  It burns hair. Russell Model is likely one of the folks injured. Model is a well-known and rich comic.  Though he’s English, the incident occurred on a visit to Missouri and so he filed go well with in St. Louis Federal Court docket.  Somewhat than suing only for himself, Model filed a class-action on behalf of all folks whose hair had been burned inside the State of Missouri (however excluding anybody whose pores and skin was burned).  The case seeks each an injunction (cease promoting dangerous merchandise) and financial damages for hair loss.  Model’s lawyer is a number one class-action litigator and Model has promised to pay all authorized charges from his appreciable wealth in pursuit of justice.

6. Ought to the courtroom certify the category?