In this edition of Litigation Roundup, jurors in East Texas find Samsung infringed another patent, and Texas touts a nearly $34 million settlement with AstraZeneca in a qui tam case where The Lanier Firm and McKool Smith represented the relators.
The Litigation Roundup is a weekly feature highlighting the work Texas lawyers are doing inside and outside the state. Have a development we should include next week? Please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Harris County District Court
Quinn Emanuel, Mississippi Solo Beat Buzbee Suit with TCPA
A Harris County district judge this month, in rulings issued about a week apart, granted motions to dismiss filed by two law firm defendants being sued by Tony Buzbee’s law firm, agreeing the Texas Citizens Participation Act required the move.
Harris County District Judge Kristen Brauchle Hawkins granted the request from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan June 23 and granted the same request from Marcy Bryan Croft and her firm MJ Legal June 16.
The Buzbee Law Firm had filed suit against Quinn Emanuel, Croft, her law firm and Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, alleging the defendants had committed barratry by trying to recruit former clients to bring suit against him.
Roc Nation was granted its special appearance by Judge Hawkins on June 16 as well.
The Harris County lawsuits — one filed by Buzbee’s firm and two filed by his former clients, Jose Maldonado and Gerardo Garcia, alleging they had been unlawfully solicited as clients — were consolidated in Harris County under case number 2024-84902.
In that trio of suits, Buzbee alleges it was the addition of Jay-Z as a defendant in a federal sexual assault lawsuit in New York that spawned the litigation brought against him by former clients in Louisiana. Buzbee has alleged it was really the law firm representing Jay-Z, Quinn Emanuel, that was “orchestrating” the filing of the lawsuits against him. Buzbee also accused Croft and her law firm of helping to orchestrate the filing of what he has alleged are retaliatory and baseless lawsuits.
Quinn Emanuel told the court in briefing that the plaintiffs have no evidence the law firm is involved “in the conduct about which they complain.”
“The plaintiffs’ strategic litigation campaign is thus the paradigmatic evil the Texas Citizens Participation Act was designed to police: The use of litigation to stifle the rights of another,” the brief reads. “Straightforward application of the TCPA compels the court to end this illegal effort.”
Croft and her firm told the court in a separate filing that the lawsuit against it has nothing to do with “barratry or protecting clients,” but instead was brought to retaliate against her “for refusing to yield to bully tactics in unrelated litigation.”
The Buzbee Law Firm, Garcia and Maldonado are represented by the firm’s own Tony Buzbee and David C. Fortney.
Croft and MJ Legal are represented by Gregg J. Costa, Sydney Scott, Johanna E. Smith and Reed Brodsky of Gibson Dunn.
Roc Nation is represented by L. Bradley Hancock, Maria Gil and Megan Healy Schmid of Holland & Knight
Quinn Emanuel is represented by Lauren M. Black, Michael Williams and Robert Ford of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.
Travis County District Court
Texas Inks $33.9M Settlement with AstraZeneca
AstraZeneca and the state of Texas have reached a settlement to resolve allegations the pharmaceutical company participated in a kickback scheme involving prescriptions paid for by Texas Medicaid.
The qui tam lawsuit filed by the relators, SCEF LLC and Lynne Levin-Guzman, was transferred into Travis County District Court in December 2025 and was assigned to Travis County District Judge Cory Liu. The petition alleged AstraZeneca engaged in a scheme to provide free nursing and reimbursement services to prescribers and paid third parties to have nurses and other healthcare professionals push AstraZeneca drugs, “under the guise of non-branded counseling.”
Because many of those prescriptions were covered by Medicaid, the lawsuit alleged, AstraZeneca profited millions from its “illegal inducements.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the nearly $34 million settlement agreement Monday morning.
“I will not allow Big Pharma to misuse taxpayer dollars to put profit ahead of Texans’ health,” he said in a news release. “My office will continue aggressively pursuing healthcare fraud to protect taxpayer dollars and the integrity of our healthcare system.”
The relators are represented by W. Mark Lanier, Alex J. Brown and Zeke DeRose III of The Lanier Firm and Jennifer Truelove of McKool Smith. Texas is represented by Amy Hilton of the state’s attorney general’s office.
AstraZeneca is represented by its own senior counsel Kevin Jayne, Ryan P. McCarthy and John C. Dodds of Morgan Lewis and Paul Singer of Kelley Drye & Warren.
The case number is D-1-GN-25-011002.
Eastern District of Texas
Samsung Owes $3M in Infringement Case, Jurors Say
A jury in Marshall on Friday determined Samsung Electronics Co. owes Vasu Holdings $3 million in damages in a patent infringement dispute.
Vasu had filed suit in January 2024, alleging Samsung infringed six patents covering telecommunications technology that “enables automatic switch between cellular and wi-fi networks, and wi-fi and wi-fi networks while maintaining uninterrupted sessions for communications over cellular or landline using voice, video or data.”
On the verdict form, jurors were only asked whether Samsung had infringed three of those patents.
The trial began June 22 in U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s courtroom, and jurors heard four days of testimony before returning a verdict Friday around 3:45 p.m. The panel determined Samsung infringed one of the three patents and owes $3 million in damages as a result.
Vasu is represented by Paul J. Andrew, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Kristopher Kastens, Michael H. Lee, Jennifer L. Gilbert, Melissa T.G. Brenner, Charles Lee, Girija Gaur, Ken Mueller and Carlos J. Tirado of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Elizabeth L. DeRieux and S. Calvin Capshaw of Capshaw DeRieux.
Samsung is represented by Mary V. Sooter, Alica J. Ahn, Mark D. Selwyn, Arthur RW. Coviello, Joseph J. Mueller, Jordan L. Hirsch, Kate M. Saxton, Brittany B. Amadi and Amy K. Wigmore of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door, Harry Gillam Jr., Melissa R. Smith, James Underwood and Andrew Gorham of Gillam & Smith and Steven Pepe, Kevin J. Post, Alexander Middleton, Jolene Wang, Brian Lebow, David S. Chun, James L. Davis Jr. and Nancy Attalla of Sheppard.
The case number is 2:24-cv-00034.
Western District of Texas
Boerne Woman Charged in Ponzi Scheme Settles with SEC
A Boerne resident who previously held insurance and real estate licenses has reached an agreement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to settle allegations she participated in a $56 million real estate Ponzi scheme.
U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered final judgment June 25, two days after the complaint was filed in the suit against Sanders Family Office and its principal, Margaret Sanders.
The government accused Sanders of soliciting about $40 million from about 600 investors between August 2020 and March 2023 for Wells Real Estate, earning her about $3 million in commissions.
Without admitting to any allegations, Sanders agreed to pay $2.97 million in disgorgement, $506,228.74 in interest and a civil penalty of $100,000.
An alleged coconspirator, Florida man Francisco J. Herrera, also settled allegations he had raised about $10 million from 190 investors for Wells Real Estate.
Sanders is represented by Chris Kirkpatrick of Wick Phillips.
The SEC is represented by its own Brian Lechich and Melissa J. Armstrong.
The case number is 5:26-cv-03953.
Northern District of Texas
SEC, Dallas COO Settle Fraud Claims
The SEC and a 43-year-old Dallas man who formerly served as the chief operating officer and sales manager of oil and gas exploration and production company Cannon Operating Company have agreed to the entry of a final judgment that will end claims that he made false and misleading statements to investors.
The SEC filed a civil complaint against Michael Bowen in June 2022, alleging he and coconspirators raised about $2.1 million from at least 140 investors between January 2018 and September 2020 “through the fraudulent and unregistered offer and sale of securities — four offerings of working interests in oil-and-gas wells in Oklahoma.”
The government alleged offering materials that Bowen helped draft contained misrepresentations about Cannon’s prior wells in the same oil field and how investor funds would be used, and that they did not disclose sales commissions. Bowen, the SEC alleged, directed and concealed the payment of undisclosed sales commissions and acted as an unregistered broker.
Bowen did not admit to any allegations in the complaint.
U.S. District Judge Karen Gren Scholer entered final judgment in the case June 8, ordering Bowen pay $106,000 in disgorgement, $48,827 in interest on that amount and a civil penalty of $150,000.
The complaint notes Bowen had previously had a run-in with the SEC. In 2018 and 2019, he was sanctioned for selling securities issued by several companies — including Breitling Oil and Gas, Crude Energy and Patriot Energy — in unregistered offerings and for doing so without being a registered broker. At that time, according to the complaint, the SEC “ordered him to pay $2,036,012.96 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest (which he has not paid),” and to pay a $50,000 civil penalty, which he also had not paid at the time the complaint was filed.
Bowen is represented by Jason Hopkins, Brandon Fuqua and Jason Lewis of DLA Piper.
The SEC is represented by its own Jason Rose, James Etri, Janie Frank and Jeaneen Kappell of the Fort Worth regional office.
The case number is 3:22-cv-1415.
Southern District of Texas
Sorrento Shareholders’ Suit Booted by Bankruptcy Judge
A lawsuit filed in federal court in California this April against Jackson Walker and others over the handling of the Sorrento Therapeutics bankruptcy proceedings cannot proceed, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Alfredo Perez determined last week.
The group of 13 shareholders in the biopharmaceutical tech company alleged Jackson Walker’s decision to file its bankruptcy case in the Southern District of Texas was done to enrich the firm at the expense of the shareholders.
The allegations stem from a bankruptcy court scandal involving a previously undisclosed romantic relationship between a former Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner, Elizabeth Freeman, and a then-sitting bankruptcy judge, David Jones, that rocked the Southern District of Texas and resulted in Jones’ resignation from the bench.
The shareholders alleged that the decision to file “fraudulent” bankruptcy proceedings for Sorrento — a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego — in the Southern District of Texas “would never have” happened “but for the unlawful actions committed by defendants as described herein.”
In a 54-page order entered June 21, Judge Perez noted that despite a “gatekeeping provision” entered in the bankruptcy case that required plaintiffs seek court approval prior to bringing suit, “[t]he claims were filed in the California District Court, nonetheless.”
“Now, approximately two and a half years after confirmation, the parties are back before this court to determine the extent of its post-confirmation jurisdiction, and whether the California plaintiffs have authorization to pursue their claims under the terms of the debtors confirmed plan,” he wrote. “The express object of this court is the fair, efficient and impartial administration of justice. This is what the court will pursue here.”
“The law, in conjunction with this court’s prior orders, mandates that the California plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims as pled in the complaint. Accordingly, they must be denied authorization to pursue them, and the motions to enforce must be granted.”
Jackson Walker is represented by John J. Kane, Joseph M. Coleman and JaKayla J. DaBera of Kane Russell Coleman Logan.
The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley P. Boyer, Victoria H. Buter and Thomas H. Dahlk of Kutak Rock.
The case number is 23-90085.
First Court of Appeals, Houston
Verdict Rendered by 5 Jurors Cannot Stand
In a fight between a homeowner and Texas Fair Plan Association over the denial of a claim, a three-justice panel recently determined a new trial must take place because the Texas Constitution does not allow for a verdict rendered by only five jurors to stand.
In the lawsuit brought by Kim-Lan Thi Vu, the court empaneled six jurors (and no alternates) to decide the dispute, but after trial began one juror failed to return to court and could not be reached by court staff. Vu’s counsel objected to proceeding with five jurors, which the County Court-at-Law judge overruled.
The five jurors rendered a defense verdict and the judge entered a take-nothing judgment on Vu’s claim in September 2023. Vu filed notice of appeal the following month.
“In short, Article V, Section 13 expressly authorizes a jury in a district court to render a verdict, despite the jury no longer consisting of 12 persons, when a specified number of jurors die or become disabled,” the panel held. “But Article V, Section 17 does not authorize a jury in a county court to proceed with fewer than six jurors when one juror dies or becomes disabled.”
Justices Jennifer Caughey, Amparo “Amy” Guerra and Susanna Dokupil sat on the panel.
Vu is represented by Eric Dick, Chris Carmona and Joe Synoradzki of Dick Law Firm and solo practitioner Alexander B. Wathen.
Texas Fair Plan Association is represented by J. Stephen Barrick, Eric Grant and Jay Gross of Hicks Thomas.
The case number is 01-23-00733-CV.
Texas Supreme Court
Divided Court Revives Some Claims Against Defense Attorneys
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday determined that an incarcerated man and his mother, who funded his legal defense, have standing to pursue certain claims against the son’s criminal defense attorney.
Amber Carden and her incarcerated son, William McGee, had sued the law firm Minton, Bassett, Flores & Carsey and lawyer John C. Carsey for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and fraud stemming from his representation as McGee’s criminal defense attorney.
They appealed after Travis County District Judge Maria Cantú Hexsel granted a motion for Rule 91a dismissal. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, finding binding precedent barred the son’s claims and that the mother had no standing to sue her son’s attorney. Carden and McGee turned to the high court in October 2024.
Justice John P. Devine authored the majority’s opinion, explaining the lower courts’ conclusions “are not entirely correct,” but the majority did agree that the son’s professional negligence claims are barred.
Rather than a “categorical bar to the son’s claims,” the court’s 1995 opinion in Peeler v. Hughes & Luce —which held unexonerated convicted criminals cannot bring suit against their defense counsel — his other claims should be scrutinized “under Peeler’s causation standard and the anti-fracturing rule which prevents litigants from recasting malpractice complaints as other causes of action to evade doctrinal limits.”
The lower court had “improperly” expanded Peeler, Justice Devine wrote, “by immunizing criminal-defense counsel from tort and contract claims wholly independent from the conviction.”
And the analysis of Carden’s claims “was also flawed,” he wrote.
“Although the mother was not the client, she has standing to pursue recovery for her own economic losses based on allegations — which we must take as true — that she directly paid counsel for specific services he promised but failed to provide in her son’s defense,” he wrote.
The case drew a concurring opinion from Justice Evan Young, joined by Justice Devine, and a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part authored by Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock and joined by Justice Jane Bland.
Chief Justice Blacklock wrote he would have held that all of the son’s claims are barred by Peeler.
“The distinction between malpractice disputes and fee disputes is very slippery, as this case demonstrates,” he wrote. “My concern is that in attempting to leave open the possibility that some of the son’s claims survive, the Court provides a roadmap for future criminal defendants to bypass Peeler by framing their suits against defense counsel as complaints about the fees charged rather than the performance rendered. How courts are to draw that line consistently and fairly is a mystery to me. The Court leaves it to the court of appeals, which will surely do its best.”
Carden and McGee are represented by Gaines West, John “Jay” Rudinger Jr. and Asher K. Gregg of West, Webb, Allbritton & Gentry.
Carsey and his firm are represented by Elizabeth Z. Brabb and Michael B. Johnson of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons.
The case number is 24-0834.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Panel Revives Securities Fraud Case
A group of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons shareholders will get another chance to pursue their securities fraud claims against the company after a Fifth Circuit panel on Friday revived the suit.
The shareholders, led by Todd Targgart, filed notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit in July, challenging U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman’s decision to dismiss their claims. The shareholders alleged the company filed an inaccurate registration statement with the SEC when it spun off from parent company Meta Materials.
Judge Pittman tossed the lawsuit after finding the shareholders had failed to allege they had purchased their interests in Next Bridge for value, as required by securities law, and instead had received interests in Next Bridge as a distribution.
“But the district court omitted from its analysis the fact that plaintiffs were dispossessed of their equity in Meta Materials when they received their Next Bridge shares,” the panel wrote. “Because our precedent deems this stock-for-stock exchange a purchase, we reverse.”
According to the opinion, Next Bridge listed the value of certain oil and gas assets at $47.2 million in the SEC registration statement filed in September 2022. But a few months later, after the spinoff, Next Bridge filed a fiscal report valuing the assets at $79.6 million. The following year, “Next Bridge restated its 2022 report to reflect that its O&G assets had been worth nothing,” according to the opinion.
Judges Carl E. Stewart, Kurt D. Engelhardt and Dana M. Douglas sat on the panel.
The shareholders are represented by Adam M. Apton of Levi & Korsinsky and Shayne D. Moses and David A. Palmer of Moses, Palmer & Howell.
Next Bridge Hydrocarbons is represented by Colin P. Benton, David J. Drez III, LaDawn H. Nandrasy and Paul T. Elkins of Wick Phillips Gould & Martin.
The case number is 25-10879.
Craving more Texas Lawbook litigation coverage? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. Take a look at these stories you may have missed in the past few days.
A jury in Dallas County, after hearing nearly a week of testimony, determined a man who suffered severe and life-altering injuries after coming into contact with an Oncor utility line was a trespasser and was not entitled to any damages for his injuries.
Reinforcing a ruling from the Dallas court of appeals, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday held that a grocer’s failure to investigate its suspicions that a landlord had leased its property to a competitor means it must forfeit a $20.8 million jury award.
In a case where three Jane Does alleged Dallas developer Bill Hutchinson sexually assaulted them, a jury agreed with two of the women Thursday night after 11 hours of deliberation. The two women who prevailed alleged that Hutchinson raped them. The third plaintiff alleged Hutchinson groped her, a claim the jury rejected. The jury awarded the prevailing women a combined $860,000 in damages, but the plaintiffs were seeking an award of $79.8 million.
In a major legal victory Wednesday for leaders of Gateway Church, a federal judge in Sherman dismissed a lawsuit brought by members of the church who claim its leaders misused hundreds of thousands of dollars of their tithes.
Almost a year after the deadly flash flood on the Guadalupe River that killed more than two dozen campers and staff, Camp Mystic has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. The case has been assigned to Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Lopez. First-day documents were filed by Martin Sosland, a Dallas partner with Vartabedian Katz Hester & Haynes.
For more than five decades, Douglas Lang has been a staple of the Texas appellate law community, including 16 years as a justice on the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas. Last week, Lang joined Dallas-based Carrington Coleman as senior counsel after more than four years at Thompson Coburn.
Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor heard opening statements last week in a case where he will decide whether Maritime Research & Recovery can keep the treasure it recovered from a ship that sank off the coast of the Bahamas and if Allen Exploration committed defamation.
Vinson & Elkins named Jason Marty as its chief operating officer in Houston, replacing Adam Kassoff, who is retiring. Marty will oversee business operations, including business development, communications, facilities, financial services, marketing technology, talent, and technology and data services.