Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Litepanels, LLC et al v. VFGadgets Inc., No. 2:06-cv-00167 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2007)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:06-cv-00167, Dkt. No. 65
Decided
March 5, 2007
Judge
Leonard Davis, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - Granting motion #50 for extension of time, Denying motion to remove a potential party #47, motion for pro bono mediation #61. Court orders Gekko to pay the mediator's fee by 3/8/07. Court orders Gekko to appea…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

LITEPANELS, LLC and LITEPANELS, §

INC. § §

Plaintiffs §

§ CASE NO. 2:06-CV-167

vs. § PATENT CASE § GEKKO TECHNOLOGY, LTD. § §

Defendant §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On February 22, 2007, the Court heard several of the pending motions in this case. As stated at the hearing, Litepanels’ motion for extension of time is GRANTED (Docket No. 50), Gekko’s motion to remove a potential party is DENIED (Docket No. 47), and Gekko’s motion for pro bono mediation is DENIED (Docket No. 61). The Court ORDERS Gekko to pay the mediator’s fee by March 8, 2007.

During oral arguments, Litepanels argued that David Amphlett is not entitled to represent Gekko pro se.

The right to proceed pro se in civil actions is guaranteed by 28 U.S.C. § 1654: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” However, this right is limited to appear pro se on behalf of one’s self; one cannot represent another separate legal entity, such as another person, a corporation, or a partnership, pro se. Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993); Sw. Express Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 670 F.2d 53, 55 (5th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); e.g., Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th2 Cir. 2004); Mut. Assignment & Indeminification Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., 364 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2004); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997); Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 1366, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As fictional legal entities, corporations and partnerships cannot appear for themselves personally. Sw. Express Co., 670 F.2d at 55. Their only proper representative is a licensed attorney, “not an unlicensed layman regardless of how close his association with the partnership or corporation.” Id. at 56. Thus, David Amphlett, who is not a licensed attorney, may not represent Gekko in this action.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Gekko to appear through counsel within 30 days. If counsel does not appear for Gekko within 30 days, the Court will enter a default judgment against Gekko based on its failure to defend itself in this litigation. Such a default judgment may include a permanent injunction.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Litepanels, LLC et al v. VFGadgets Inc., No. 2:06-cv-00167 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2007).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_06-cv-00167-2
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_06-cv-00167-2

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.