Tag Archives: Southern District of Florida

NEW BANKRUPTCY JUDGE – Scott M. Grossman has been Appointed as a Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Florida


MIAMI – Welcome to Scott M. Grossman, to the bench!  Scott M. Grossman is the first bankruptcy judge appointed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, since February 2006, when Judge John Olsen joined the Court.

Judge Grossman was appointed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which controls all the federal and bankruptcy courts in the State of Florida.  Judge Grossman was appointed as a Bankruptcy Judge for a fourteen-year term, effective today, October 2, 2019.  [Press Release to the announcement from the Chief Judge is available through this link: General Order 2019-03 re: Assignment of New Cases and Adversary Proceedings, and Reassignment of Pending Cases Upon Appointment of Bankruptcy Judge Scott M. Grossman.

Assouline & Berlowe SuperLawyers 2019

Layout 1

Eric N. Assouline, Esq. – Commercial Litigation and Bankruptcy Litigation Partner


Leave a comment

Filed under Appeals, Arbitration, Awards, Bankruptcy, BK, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Judgments, Labor & Employment, labor and employment law, Litigation, New Bankruptcy Court Judge, Patent Prosecution, Real Estate, trademark, Uncategorized

Patent Pilot Program in Southern District of Florida Scrubbed


On June 20, 2011, Judge Federico A. Moreno, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, signed Administrative Order 2011-53 establishing a pilot program to encourage the enhancement of expertise by assigning certain judges to hear cases involving patents.  This pilot program was a trial program that would run for a period of ten years.  However, and unfortunately, after only three years into the pilot program, Judge Moreno, after conferring with his brethren on the bench, have decided to terminate the pilot program.

According to Administrative Order 2014-58, issued by Judge Moreno, “the administration of justice would best be served in this District by terminating the pilot project and allowing patent cases in the future to remain assigned at random to the Judges to whom they are initially assigned.”

The rationale in establishing the patent pilot program was actually quite intuitive.  Looking at patent law at the appellate level, the Federal Circuit of Appeals, which is one of only twelve courts in the federal appellate system, has exclusive jurisdiction to hear patent case appeals from lower district courts across the nation.  This provides patent dispute litigants with a central judicial body to have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals involving patent cases.  Such a centralized appellate court avoids potential variation in holdings between the various appellate courts across the United States.

At the trial court level, district court judges nationwide are randomly assigned patent cases based on where the action is filed.  Any particular judge may have tried numerous patent cases, or not a single one.  Oftentimes, a district court judge’s docket is consumed with criminal trials and general civil litigation.  Intellectual property cases, especially patent cases, are few and far between, making up a small fraction of total cases filed annually.  As a result, most district court judges have limited experience concerning the nuances that go into trying a patent case.

By instituting the patent pilot program, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida was selected as only one of the fourteen to participate in the program.  The program attempted to streamline patent cases filed in the district by having all patent cases assigned to a specific set of judges.  This would increase the frequency in which the judges heard patent cases, thereby building a foundation of knowledge needed to try patent cases.  The pilot program sought to replicate the Federal Circuit by having judges that specialized in hearing patent cases.

As the pilot program has now been terminated in the Southern District of Florida, all newly filed patent cases are randomly assigned to a judge in the Southern District of Florida, just like every other case.  I was excited to learn of the pilot program in 2011 and hoped the program would make the judicial system more efficient for judges, litigants, and counsel to try patent cases in this jurisdiction.  District court judges handle a wide array of cases.  The pilot program was a great way to route the few patent cases filed in the Southern District of Florida to specialized judges who had a solid foundation of the specialized aspects of patent litigation.  Although, through this experimental pilot program, the local patent bar had wished the program would have become a permanent system, it has come to an end.  Fortunately, the judges of the Southern District are excellent and we will be fine without it.

If you have any questions about the patent process, contact Mr. Popowitz below.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

Intellectual Property Litigation


213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com


LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Florida Bar, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution

Fountainebleau Las Vegas Bankruptcy is Not Finished

Bankruptcy Litigation

Today, nearly five years since the Fountainebleu Las Vegas bankruptcy was initially filed, at the height of the economic downturn and the crest of the real estate crisis, the Trustee Soneet Kapila filed two new adversary proceeding lawsuits seeking to recover alleged preferential transfers made to third parties by one of the debtors.  The two defendants that were sued in two separate preference actions are the internationally known company Honeywell International, Inc. and L.A. Nevada, Inc. dba G&G Systems.

Focusing on the L.A. Nevada, Inc. G & G Systems case, the Trustee was appointed in 2010 and according to the Complaint a demand for the return of the payment was made on March 4, 2011.

A copy of the demand letter is not attached, nor is any contract that establishes the basis upon which the payment to this vendor was made.

As with most of these cases, it is possible that one or more defenses may apply that may reduce, if not eliminate, the claim.  For example, there may be a Ordinary Course of Business Defense, which is when a debt is paid under ordinary terms that would be expected based upon the relationship of the parties.

Another defense that often comes up in these preferential transfer cases is New Value Defense, which states that if new value, either in the form of goods or services, was extended to the Debtor at the time that the payment was made, it may constitute a defense to all or part of the claim.

Either way, it is certain that this party is probably not happy to receive this lawsuit almost five years after the case was initially filed and almost three years after a demand for payment was made and apparently refused.

If you have a bankruptcy litigation question you would like answered, please do not hesitate to contact Eric N. Assouline.




With offices in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and Boca Raton



Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, and Corporate Law

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Super Lawyers
Eric N. Assouline
Business Litigation


Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Business Litigation

10 New Patent Infringement Lawsuits by One Plaintiff – Just Yesterday

Business Law Firm Florida Patent Infringement Defense

Business Law Firm Florida Patent Infringement Defense

Patent Infringement attack!

ArrivalStar S.A. et al, an entity mentioned in previous posts on ths blog, filed ten new patent infringement cases against defendants in the Southern District of Florida.

Included are the following new cases:

ArrivalStar S.A. v. Joseph Smith Customs House Broker, Inc.
ArrivalStar S.A. v. Megatrux Transportation, Inc.
ArrivalStar S.A. v. K & N Engineering, Inc.

ArrivalStar S.A. v. Sharp Electronics Corporation
ArrivalStar S.A. v. Tubular USA, Inc.
ArrivalStar S.A. v. Greenbrier Management Services, LLC
ArrivalStar S.A. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
ArrivalStar S.A. v. WCAF Shipment Management
ArrivalStar S.A. v. Nexus Distribution Corporation
ArrivalStar S.A. v. Vehicle Tracking Solutions, LLC
If you wish to discuss your intellectual property case with us, please do not hesitate to call:

In Miami: 305-567-5576

In Broward: 954-929-1899

In Palm Beach: 561-361-6566



Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, and Corporate Law

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Intellectual Property