In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Skechers draws a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas over its line of slip-on shoes, Dallas-based Southwest Airlines is accused of race discrimination by a doctor who was removed from a flight, and the Fifth Court of Appeals clarifies the rules on supersedeas bonds in an appeal from a $30.7 million jury award.
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.
Texas Business Court, First Division
AT&T, BlackRock JV Sued For Breach by Telecom Firm
A company contracted by Gigapower, a joint venture between AT&T and BlackRock, to build $600 million worth of fiber networks in Nevada and Arizona, has turned to the Texas business court with claims the telecommunications giant withheld payments to gain leverage in negotiations and eventually forced it into bankruptcy.
Tilson Technology Management filed its lawsuit on Thursday, seeking damages that include a $140 million termination charge and at least $18 million in unpaid invoices for work the company already performed.
According to the lawsuit, Tilson entered into an agreement with Gigapower in 2022, which was the largest contract in Tilson’s history.
“As Tilson labored and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to deliver the fiber networks, Gigapower delayed, and at times withheld, payment as a tactic to gain leverage over Tilson and to force Tilson to renegotiate rates,” the suit alleges. “Gigapower tried to coerce Tilson into accepting new contract terms, including lower payments and a reduced scope of work. When Tilson refused, Gigapower terminated Tilson’s major scope of work under the Agreement ‘for convenience.’”
After Gigapower canceled the contract, Tilson alleges it exacerbated a “cash crunch,” forced it to lay off hundreds of employees and caused it to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The case has been assigned to Judge Bill Whitehill.
Tilson Technology Management is represented by John Zavitsanos, Cameron Byrd, Justin Kenney and Sean Healey of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing.
Counsel for Gigapower had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 25-BC01B-0032.
Eastern District of Texas
HandsFree Labs Alleges Skechers Slip-on Shoe Line Infringes
A lawsuit filed Thursday claims the popular shoe brand Skechers has infringed six patents held by HandsFree Labs with its Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins shoe line.
Boies Schiller Flexner partner Ryan Dykal, who represents HandsFree, said the amount of damages his client will seek isn’t clear yet because Skechers, which brings in about $9 billion in revenue each year, does not break out its revenue by category. HandsFree Labs is seeking royalties for the past several years.
Dykal added that the Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins line appears to be its fastest-growing line, accounting for 35 percent of its products listed online.
HandsFree Labs is one of three plaintiffs in the suit, alongside Kizik, which licenses HFL patents and Fast IP, the IP holding company that owns the HFL patents.
HandsFree Labs, which alleges it created the category of shoes covered by its patents, claims Skechers entered the market with a Super Bowl ad in 2023 featuring celebrities like Snoop Dogg, Martha Stewart, Tony Romo and Howie Long.
“We think it’s very high stakes,” Dykal said.
HFL holds a global IP portfolio of more than 200 issued and pending patents covering multiple proprietary hands-free footwear systems, including its Cage, Flex Arc and Squeeze It technologies. Since 2019, HFL has licensed its technologies to Nike and others.
“This isn’t just a product Skechers copied, it’s a category we created,” HFL CEO Gareth Hosford said in a news release. “From the start, our mission was clear — to revolutionize how people put on their shoes. We believed this everyday task could be easier, faster, and more convenient. We poured our energy into developing the technology to solve a real-world problem and make hands-free shoes a reality. We’re now forced to defend that work against a company that chose to imitate rather than innovate.”
HandsFree Labs is requesting a jury trial and an injunction prohibiting Skechers from using the patents.
“The real danger here isn’t just to our company, it’s to innovation itself,” Hosford said in the release. “When billion-dollar brands can openly copy protected technologies and profit from doing so with no consequences, it sends a dangerous message to every entrepreneur, engineer, and inventor: your work doesn’t matter. We can’t accept that. And we won’t.”
Skechers issued a statement calling the lawsuit “baseless.” The company’s president, Michael Greenberg, said in a news release that the “timing of this lawsuit is curious, coming on the heels of Skechers announcing a $9.42 billion merger with 3G Capital.”
“Kizik asserts that, ‘at the heart of Skechers’ hands-free shoes’ are Kizik’s patented technologies, yet Skechers has been advertising and selling its Slip-ins since December 2021 without so much as a letter from Kizik,” the statement reads. “Then, after the merger is announced, Kizik hires a law firm also used by Nike and attacks our whole Slip-ins product line. We believe that, after all these years of silence, the true motivation for this lawsuit might be found right on the face of Kizik’s complaint, where they state that they are looking for a share of the $9.42 billion being paid for Skechers, money Kizik did not earn and does not deserve.”
Counsel for Skechers had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 2:25-cv-00744.
Western District of Texas
Paxton Sued Over New Law Targeting Proxy Advisory Firms
On Thursday, proxy advisory firms Glass, Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services filed separate lawsuits against the Texas attorney general, alleging a new law set to take effect Sept. 1, S.B. 2337, violates the First Amendment and constitutes viewpoint discrimination.
Glass Lewis, in a 45-page suit, called SB 2337 a “novel, first-of-its-kind law” that was passed by lawmakers as “part of a wave of political pushback against ESG and DEI initiatives.” Under the law, proxy advisers are required to tell clients their recommendations are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders” if they have made the recommendation “wholly or partly based on … one or more nonfinancial factors, including … an environmental, social or governance goal, factor or investment principle” or “diversity, equity or inclusion.”
“Whenever Glass Lewis’ speech reflects certain viewpoints disfavored by the government, the Act compels Glass Lewis to broadcast the government’s contrary viewpoint and publicly condemn itself: Glass Lewis must tell its clients that its services are ‘not being provided solely in the financial interest of the company’s shareholders’ and ‘conspicuously disclose’ this warning on the firm’s website homepage,” the company alleged.
ISS said in its 38-page lawsuit that the law “identifies particular investment objections that the state of Texas disagrees with, labels them ‘nonfinancial factors,’ and imposes onerous regulations on proxy advisors who consider — at their clients’ request — these objectives as part of their service of providing proxy advice to those clients.”
ISS said the law will subject it and others to “burdensome regulatory requirements for the act of giving investment advice that Texas does not like.” The company asked the court to rule on its motion for a preliminary injunction by Sept. 1.
The lawsuits also reference comments lawmakers (Texas Sen. Bryan Hughes and Texas Rep. Jeff Leach) made when the bill was being discussed and debated in the Legislature.
“[T]he point here is to make sure that proxy advisory firms, when they’re rendering advice . . . that they’re focused on economic factors . … So, when they’re focused on non-economic-type factors, whether it’s ESG, whether it’s DEI … that’s what we want to prevent,” the lawsuit states, purportedly quoting Leach.
Hughes allegedly said during a debate on the bill April 24 that “proxy advisory firms have become increasingly political with a hard left bent.”
The cases have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Alan Albright.
Institutional Shareholder Services is represented by Bruce D. Oakley, Jessica L. Ellsworth, David M. Foster, James Yates and Sam Zwingli of Hogan Lovells.
Glass Lewis is represented by Bryce L. Callahan, Grant Martinez, Jared LeBrun and Lily Hann of Yetter Coleman.
Counsel for Paxton had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case numbers are 1:25-cv-01160 and 1:25-cv-01153.
Northern District of Illinois
Southwest Airlines Hit with Race Discrimination Lawsuit
A doctor of pharmacy who had “A-List” status with Southwest Airlines has filed a federal lawsuit alleging she was berated by a flight attendant who ended up kicking her off a flight, embarrassed by members of the crew and treated differently than white passengers on the basis of her race.
Briana Hicks, who is Black, had boarded a flight from Chicago Midway International Airport to Washington Reagan National Airport on Nov. 20, 2024, and selected a seat in the exit row. Hicks alleges a white flight attendant singled her out during the exit row briefing for being on her phone while many other white exit row passengers also had out phones or laptops but were not scolded or told to “pay attention” as she was.
Hicks maintains she was putting her phone in airplane mode before placing it face-down in her lap and alleges that after she “calmly replied that she was listening and paying attention to the briefing,” the flight attendant “became hostile, directing Dr. Hicks in a loud and aggressive manner to put her phone away.”
Two nearby white passengers vocalized their beliefs that Hicks was being singled out and treated differently based on her race, according to the lawsuit.
After the briefing concluded, Hicks approached flight attendants at the back of the plane to complain about what she alleged was the racial discrimination she experienced, and moments later, when the flight attendant who had given the exit-row briefing heard about Hicks’ complaint, he ordered her off the plane.
“Being singled out for mistreatment based on my race was painful enough; enduring that discrimination on top of being publicly removed from a flight and having my entire travel schedule derailed was almost unbearable,” Hicks said in a statement. “As a loyal Southwest customer and a human being, I am asking Southwest to make this situation right and commit to doing better going forward.”
Before turning to the courts with her grievance, Hicks said in the lawsuit she made a complaint on Southwest’s website and sent an email to the company’s executives in November 2024.
She received a response in February 2025, according to the lawsuit. The company stated Hicks had “failed to adhere to orderly rules of conduct while onboard, thereby disturbing the good order and discipline on the aircraft.” It stood by the decision to kick her off the flight, writing passengers can be removed for “refusing to follow or obey the instructions of any member of the crew for engaging in a verbal confrontation with the crew members or other passengers” or “for engaging in disorderly, threatening or belligerent behavior.”
The 13-page lawsuit, filed Thursday, has been assigned to U.S. District Judge LaShonda Hunt.
Hicks is represented by Benjamin Blustein of Minder, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago and Michael T. Kirkpatrick and Lauren Bateman of Public Citizen Litigation Group.
Counsel for Southwest had not filed an appearance as of Monday. Southwest Airlines told The Lawbook Monday that the company does not comment on pending litigation.
The case number is 1:25-cv-08495.
First Court of Appeals, Houston
Panel Sides With Mom Suing Hospital For Giving Away Her Baby
A mother who is suing a hospital for allegedly giving away her newborn after she changed her mind and decided against giving the child up for adoption will be allowed to proceed with her lawsuit, after a three-justice panel in Houston’s recent opinion.
On Thursday, the court determined first that Shelby Cagle’s lawsuit against Houston Methodist St. John Hospital, which does business as Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital, is a healthcare liability claim. Those types of lawsuits require plaintiffs to file an expert report explaining what the standard of care is, how it was deviated from and how that deviation caused the alleged injuries.
Cagle had filed a report not from a medical professional, as is common, but from a lawyer and former family court judge, in support of her claims, arguing her claims “center on legal requirements applicable to a hospital.”
The hospital argued that the report didn’t meet the statutory requirements because Radcliffe isn’t a practicing health care professional. The trial court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss and this appeal followed.
“We do not imagine that the Legislature contemplated a situation like the one presented here when it enacted or amended the Act,” the panel said of the expert report requirement. “… We conclude that, in the unusual circumstances presented here, there is good reason to hold that the attorney-expert is a person with expertise for the purpose of the expert report. We conclude that the report contains the opinion of an individual with expertise that the claim has merit and implicates the hospital’s conduct.”
The court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss, but sent the case back to the trial court to consider whether to allow Cagle to fix “deficiencies” in the expert report, writing “we conclude that Radcliffe is an expert in this case, and Radcliffe’s report is deficient but not so lacking in substance as to constitute no report at all.”
Justices Susanna Dokupil, Amparo “Amy” Guerra and David M. Gunn sat on the panel.
Houston Methodist Clear Lake is represented by Angela M. Nolan of Lapin & Landa.
Cagle is represented by Keith A. Gross of League City.
The case number is 01-25-00055-CV.
Fifth Court of Appeals, Dallas
Panel Decides Superseadeas Bond Dispute
Sun Holdings and its affiliated companies recently won an appeal when a panel agreed a trial court had wrongly removed limiting language from nine separate $16.9 million bonds in an appeal of a $30.7 million jury verdict.
On Friday, the court issued an eight-page ruling granting Sun Holdings’ Rule 24.4 motion, which allows for appellate review of the amount of security ordered by a trial court.
“In their Rule 24.4 motion, judgment debtors ask this Court to reverse the trial court’s Feb. 5, 2025, ruling and to confirm that the bonds with the limiting language, as filed, provide sufficient security for judgment creditor,” the panel wrote, referencing the court’s decision to remove language stating that “judgment creditor cannot collect more than $16,907,816.98, in total, from the full set of bonds filed by judgment debtors.”
“We reverse the trial court’s February 2025 ruling, and we conclude that the bonds with the limiting language stating that judgment creditor cannot collect more than $16,907,816.98, in total, from the full set of bonds filed by judgment debtors constitute sufficient security for judgment creditor,” the panel wrote.
In February 2024, a jury of six Dallas County residents heard eight days of testimony. It deliberated for two hours before deciding Jerry “Scott” Stockton wasn’t lying when he told them his former employer, Guillermo Perales, and his company, Farmers Branch-based Sun Holdings, had promised to pay him 5 percent of the annual operating profits of the restaurants he helped oversee.
The jury awarded Stockton about $15.6 million in compensatory damages and $15.1 million in punitive damages. Perales owns about 150 Popeyes restaurants across Texas, Oklahoma and Florida.
Chief Justice J.J. Koch and Justices Bonnie Lee Goldstein and Dennise Garcia sat on the panel.
In the Sun Holdings case, Stockton is represented by Daniel H. Charest, E. Lawrence Vincent and Chase Hilton of Burns Charest and Anne M. Johnson and Stephani A. Michel of Tillotson Johnson & Patton.
Sun Holdings is represented by Byron K. Henry and Walker S. Young of Henry Hill. Perales is represented by Michael K. Hurst, David S. Coale, Mary Goodrich Nix and Campbell Sode of Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann.
The case number is 05-24-00503-CV.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Inmate’s Heat-Related Death Case Revived
U.S. District Judge James Hendrix got it wrong when he determined a lawsuit brought by the mother of an incarcerated man who died because of excessive heat exposure should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, an appellate panel recently determined.
In a 15-page per curiam opinion issued Friday, the court revived the claims of Cynthia Coones, whose son Jace Coones died in August 2020 in the Texas Department of Corrections prison in Colorado City. He was found dead in his non-air-conditioned cell after seeking medical care for dehydration and difficulty breathing throughout the month.
Coones filed suit in June 2022 against registered nurse Beverly Cogburn, licensed vocational nurse Christi Baker, warden Edmundo Cueto, TDCJ executive director Bryan Collier and TDCJ regional director Jodi Hefner.
“The subject of this appeal has long been familiar in the Fifth Circuit — the deadly impact of the Texas heat on inmates. … As the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly acknowledged, inmates have a right to be free from excessive heat,” the panel wrote.
The court noted that, between 2001 and 2019, there were as many as 271 heat-related deaths in Texas prisons, which is 30 times the national average. The suit alleges Cogburn saw Coones on Aug. 28, when outside temperatures exceeded 100 degrees and noted that his resting pulse was 103 and his respiration rate was 98 breaths per minute, higher than his typical pulse of 80 and respiration rate of 18.
Cogburn allowed Coones to lie on a gurney for an unknown amount of time before sending him back to his cell.
Two days later, another day where temperatures exceeded 100, Baker saw Coones on the floor of his cell “rolling around on the floor naked,” with four untouched trays of food around him, unable to verbalize.
“Baker did not provide any medical treatment and merely ‘encouraged [Coones] to get up and get on with his day,’” the opinion states.
The next morning, Coones was found dead in his cell and rigor mortis with mottling had set in, “meaning that Coones had been dead for a significant period.” He had lost 24 pounds in three days.
“We conclude that plaintiff plausibly states a violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law against Executive Director of TDCJ Bryan Collier, Warden Jodi Hefner, RN Beverly Cogburn, and LVN Christi Baker,” the Fifth Circuit held.
Judges Carl E. Stewart, James L. Dennis and Catharina Haynes sat on the panel.
Coones is represented by Randall Kallinen and Alexander Johnson of Kallinen Law.
Collier, Baker, Cueto and Hefner are represented by Cameron Fraser, Jacob Pons, Alyson Chensasky and Alex Simpson of the attorney general’s office. Cogburn is represented by Aaron Carter of Jackson & Carter.
The case number is 24-10777.
Alexa Shrake contributed to this report.
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 long-awaited $440 million fraud trial that pitted current Astros owner Jim Crane against former Astros owner Drayton McLane came to an anticlimactic end Friday when the parties settled on what would have been Day 2 of a three-week trial. The billionaires each thanked the jury for their service before exiting the courtroom and declining to comment on the confidential settlement that ended the 12-year fight.
A jury in East Texas awarded Tyler-based technology firm Headwater Research $175 million in a patent dispute with Verizon Wireless. It marked the second such verdict in three months for Headwater.
Rusty Hardin is representing a Houston police officer in a product liability lawsuit against Sig Sauer. The officer was directing traffic in advance of a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade when he says his duty weapon discharged on its own, sending a bullet into his right calf before lodging in his ankle. He required emergency surgery and is seeking $10 million in damages.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen awarded IBM’s legal team about $41.5 million in fees and costs for work done on the lawsuit brought by Houston-based software company BMC. IBM had requested about $59.2 million total. Judge Hanen knocked down the hourly rate of some Quinn Emanuel lawyers from $1,925 an hour to a maximum of $935 an hour and also pinged the legal team for a few expensive dinners in New Orleans and stays at the Four Seasons and the Ritz-Carlton. “While, of course, the attorneys do not need to stay at a motel along the interstate, BMC should not be required to pay for these establishments for a large number of attorneys who were peripherally involved,” Judge Hanen wrote.
Dallas real estate executive Jared Caplan claims in a new lawsuit that he is the victim of a switch-and-bait fraud perpetrated by Lily Sarafan, a top executive at private equity owned home healthcare company, TheKey. A lawyer for Sarafin, who is now the chair of the Stanford University board of trustees, calls the lawsuit vexatious.