In this edition of Litigation Roundup, Winston & Strawn is representing the NFL Players Association in a federal lawsuit in Houston over the handling of a grievance and AZA and Beck Redden prevail on appeal in a California trade secrets dispute over a penile implant.
Also last week, the Senate confirmed Christopher R. Wolfe as one of the newest members of the federal judiciary. Judge Wolfe will serve in Waco, in the Western District of Texas, replacing U.S. District Judge David Guaderrama, who took senior status in 2023 and sits in El Paso.
Judge Wolfe had been a Tarrant County district judge since 2018 and was confirmed by the Senate Tuesday in a 53-47 vote.
“The Senate is continuing on a record pace of judicial confirmations of President Trump’s nominees with today’s passage of Christopher Wolfe to serve as a federal judge in Waco,” Sen. John Cornyn said in a news release. “I was proud to join Senator Cruz in recommending him to serve on the federal bench given his wealth of experience upholding the rule of law as a State District Judge, and I look forward to seeing the good work he’ll do on the federal bench.”
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.
Southern District of Texas
Judge Tosses FCPA Conviction
A man who has been in custody since his December conviction for what prosecutors alleged was a scheme to bribe PEMEX officials has been released and acquitted by a federal judge in Texas.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt ordered Ramon Alexandro Rovirosa Martinez — a 46-year-old Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States who lives in The Woodlands — released on April 14. Prosecutors had alleged the man paid PEMEX officials about $150,000 in exchange for securing contracts between his companies and the state-owned oil company.
Most of the government’s evidence came through electronic messages Rovirosa Martinez had allegedly sent with other coconspirators about the scheme. Throughout the case, Rovirosa Martinez argued that the offering of the evidence through text messages prevented him from confronting the government witnesses whose testimony was the basis of the government’s case in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
Rovirosa Martinez was indicted in August 2025, and the case was tried to a jury over five days in December 2025. On Dec. 5, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and two counts of FCPA violations. The jury cleared him of a fourth FCPA violation claim. That same day, Judge Hoyt scheduled his sentencing for March 23, but on March 17, he issued an order rescheduling the sentencing for April 27.
Then, on April 6, following a telephone conference, Judge Hoyt entered an order indicating he would be filing an opinion and order of dismissal within 10 days.
Rovirosa Martinez faced up to 15 years in prison.
In a nine-page April 14 order dismissing the indictment and granting Rovirosa Martinez an acquittal, Judge Hoyt explained there was a lack of evidence to support the conviction, in violation of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. He wrote that the messages “constitute hearsay messages, and would be admissible in a conspiracy setting,” but they were not automatically admissible in this case because “as translation, and when used to establish the case, they are testimonial.”
“The government’s primary purpose for offering the messages was to convict Rovirosa, i.e., to prove the elements of the crimes charged in the indictment,” Judge Hoyt wrote. “In reaching this conclusion, the Court finds that the government has not produced evidence showing that the translators were unavailable or that Rovirosa was given an opportunity to cross-examine them prior to trial.”
“The precedent is clear, the government had a duty to produce the translators for cross examination.”
Rovirosa Martinez is represented by Catherine M. Maraist of Breazeale Sachse & Wilson and Ryan D. McConnell, Lawrence Finder and Matthew Boyden of R. McConnell Group.
The federal government is represented by Bradley Gray, Lindsey D. Carson, Abdus Pardesi and Paul G. Ream of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 4:25-cr-00415.
Ex-NFL Linebacker Sues Players Association After Grievance Tossed
Winston & Strawn is defending the NFL Players Association and union lawyer Andrew Morris against allegations brought by a former linebacker who alleges he was never given notice the union has dismissed his grievance.
Tyus Bowser originally filed the case in Harris County District Court, and it was removed to federal court March 25. Bowser, who was drafted in the second round of the 2017 draft by the Baltimore Ravens, had filed the grievance in April 2024 alleging a staph infection he contracted at a Ravens’ medical facility derailed his career.
According to the lawsuit, a hearing on the grievance was set for October 2024, then was postponed without providing notice to Bowser and was later dropped entirely, he alleges.
He is seeking more than $1 million in damages.
An initial pretrial and scheduling conference has been scheduled to take place June 12 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Nicholas J. Ganjei.
Bowser is represented by Christopher Lindstrom and Timothy Dortch of Dortch Lindstrom Livingston Law Group.
The NFLPA is represented by Madison Hausisen, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Dave Greenspan, Adam I. Dale, Gabi Wolk and Hannah M. Shankman of Winston & Strawn.
In a news release, Dortch said the NFLPA dismissed his client’s grievance “without his permission and without warning.” In the same news release, Dortch alleges the union in 2023 and 2024 spent more than $18.2 million on outside lawyers, $14 million of which was paid to Winston & Strawn.
“Nobody questions whether the NFLPA knows how to find good lawyers,” he said in a statement. “The question is why Tyus Bowser never got that same effort. Tyus Bowser deserved that kind of fight when it was his career on the line. He didn’t get it.”
The case number is 4:26-cv-02384.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
DOBS Defends Asbestos Win Against Pabst Brewing Co.
A jury verdict in favor of the family of a man exposed to asbestos while working at a Pabst Brewing Company facility has been upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In a divided April 15 ruling, the court’s majority affirmed the jury’s decision finding Pabst liable negligent for breaching the heightened duty of care under the state’s safe-place statute. Gerald Lorbiecki, who worked for a contractor installing and repairing asbestos-insulated pipes at the brewery, sued the company after he contracted mesothelioma. Lorbiecki has since died.
Pabst, on appeal, argued that it couldn’t be held liable under the safe-place statute and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the punitive damages award against it.
Five judges joined in the majority opinion, two signed a concurring opinion, and two judges dissented. The court determined that Lorbiecki was entitled to the $2.3 million in compensatory damages awarded by the jury and that punitive damages were capped at twice that amount, $4.6 million.
In 2021, a jury awarded Lorbiecki $26.5 million in damages
The family is represented by Jonathan Holder of Dean Omar Branham Shirley.
“The decision builds on what both the jury and the appellate court already recognized: Pabst knew about the dangers of asbestos exposure in its facility and failed to act,” Holder said in a news release. “The Wisconsin Supreme Court has now made clear that companies cannot avoid responsibility for unsafe conditions simply because the work is performed by contractors.”
Pabst is represented by Sopen Shah of Perkins Coie, Eric Hall and George Kiser of Hepler Broom and David Turek of Gass Turek.
The case number is 2022AP723.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
AZA, Beck Redden Win Appeal in Penile Implant Trade Secret Case
In an opinion issued Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s verdict in favor of Dr. James Elist, creator of the Penuma penile implant, finding no trade secrets had been misappropriated.
Elist had sued Houston-based urologist , Dr. Robert Cornell, Richard B. Finger, Dr. Run Wang and a group of other individuals and entities in California federal court in 2020, alleging they had misappropriated trade secrets and breached an agreement by launching a competing implant called Augmenta.
A jury agreed in 2023, and the trial court awarded $5.7 million in reasonable royalties for the trade secret misappropriation, $11.5 million in exemplary damages and an additional $1 million in statutory damages stemming from the use of a counterfeit mark, according to the opinion.
On appeal, the panel found the four alleged trade secrets were not actually trade secrets.
“We hold that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support the jury’s finding that plaintiffs had met their burden to show that each of the asserted trade secrets was a protectable trade secret under California law and reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL on the trade-secret claims,” the appellate panel held.
The appellate court did find there was sufficient evidence to support the counterfeiting claims and related damages for the unauthorized use of the Penuma mark.
Circuit Judges Timothy B. Dyk, Jimmie V. Reyna and Richard G. Taranto sat on the panel.
Cornell Cosmetic Urology, Robert Cornell, Augmenta and the other defendants are represented by Kelsi Stayart White, Weining Bai and Jason McManis of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing.
“There were no secrets here to be kept. Multiple patents had already put all the ideas claimed as ‘secret’ in the public domain so the jury finding was properly overturned,” White said in a news release.
Finger is represented by Russell Post of Beck Redden and Jonathan Weinberg of King & Spalding.
International Medical Devices and Elist are represented by Nathan S. Mammen and Cole Tipton of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg and Ryan G. Baker and May Chan of Waymaker.
The case numbers are 2025-1580 and 2025-1605.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Panel Axes Home Distilling Ban
In a 23-page opinion, a three-judge panel decided that 158-year-old law prohibiting home distilling is unconstitutional and cannot stand.
The ruling, issued April 10, came in a lawsuit brought by a handful of members of the Hobby Distillers Association in December 2023. The plaintiffs argued that the 1868 prohibition violated their constitutional rights by barring them from distilling spirits at home as a hobby.
The challenged law prohibits the production of distilled spirits “in any dwelling house, in any shed, yard, or enclosure connected with any dwelling house,” among other restrictions. Violators can face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The panel found the prohibition, “while venerable,” ran afoul of the constitution’s “Taxation and Necessary and Proper clauses.”
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman dismissed some of the plaintiffs based on a lack of standing but granted relief to two plaintiffs, agreeing the law violated the constitution. Both the plaintiffs and the federal government appealed to the Fifth Circuit in August 2024, according to court records.
The government argued the law was necessary to prevent tax evasion, but the panel wrote that they do not further that purpose because they “tax nothing.”
“On the contrary, these statutes reduce revenue by preventing individuals from making distilled spirits,” the panel wrote. “The district court correctly explained that the provisions at issue punish individuals Congress cannot reach.”
Critiquing the government’s argument, the panel wrote that under the federal authorities’ logic “Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity.”
“Home-based businesses may be forbidden,” the opinion reads. “Remote work may be deemed a crime. But ‘the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior [as the Commerce Clause].’ Logically, the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot expand the reach of the taxing power to criminalize conduct that could produce taxable revenue under the pretext that generating revenue for the federal government will be enhanced.”
The panel included Fifth Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones and James E. Graves Jr., as well as U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who sat by assignment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Casey L. Griffith of Griffith Barbee, Andrew Grossman of Baker Hostetler, Robert Alt of the Buckeye Institute and Charles Watkins of Alexandria, Virginia.
The Department of Justice and ATF is represented by Caroline M. Tan of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 24-10760.
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court Friday decided that an environmental damages lawsuit in a Louisiana state court against oil and gas giant Chevron USA should rightly be removed to federal jurisdiction because of the company’s history as a vendor for petroleum products during World War II. Chevron was represented by Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy. Plaquemines Parish was represented by Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga and Victor Marcello of Talbot, Carmouche & Marcello in Baton Rouge.
Television in the 1980s disrupted the media landscape with MTV and the QVC Shopping Network. MTV long ago gave up playing music videos, and the QVC Group on Thursday officially filed for Chapter 11 protection in the bankruptcy court in the Southern District of Texas, citing $6.6 billion in debts.
For two hours Tuesday morning, 12 jurors and one alternate seated in a Harris County courtroom were told they would be determining who was responsible for a deadly explosion that rocked a West Houston neighborhood in 2020, claiming lives and damaging or destroying more than 450 businesses and homes.
In a tag-team closing argument Monday afternoon, two attorneys representing a client facing a $432.7 million damages request by Energy Transfer told Business Court Judge Grant Dorfman the amount being sought is both unfounded and a drastic overreach.
Texas Lawbook reporter Alexa Shrake was in Denver all last week covering a breach of contract dispute between Tellurian founder Charif Souki and a major investor. Testimony began Monday, and the parties rested Thursday after jurors heard testimony from Souki himself. The eight-member jury unanimously found Souki breached a contract with an investor and awarded $39 million in damages after deliberating just over three hours on a snowy Friday afternoon.