It’s Spring in Texas which means one of two things – the bluebonnets are out and in odd years, our legislature is back at work. One makes me grateful to be in Texas and the other only meets every other year. Here are a few bills we are watching this session:
Service of Process Via Social Media- HB 241
The Legislature is making another effort on this.
The bill provides:
Sec. 17.032. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA PRESENCE.
(a) If substituted service of citation is authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the court, in accordance with the rules adopted by the supreme court under Subsection (b), may prescribe as a method of service an electronic communication sent to the defendant through a social media presence.
(b) The supreme court shall adopt rules to provide for the substituted service of citation by an electronic communication sent to a defendant through a social media presence.
It looks like the bill stalled in committee.
Codifying a fair reporting privilege – SB 627
The Legislature continues to show its disdain for defamation suits. This time, they are considering a bill that would codify a sometimes-recognized common law fair reporting privilege. The privilege allows for a fair reporting of public records and allegations as long as done in good faith. It looks like this one may become law.
The bill provides:
(b) This section applies to:
(1) a fair, true, and impartial account of:
(A) a judicial proceeding, unless the court has prohibited publication of a matter because in its judgment the interests of justice demand that the matter not be published; (B) an official proceeding, other than a judicial proceeding, to administer the law; (C) an executive or legislative proceeding (including a proceeding of a legislative committee), a proceeding in or before a managing board of an educational or eleemosynary institution supported from the public revenue, of the governing body of a city or town, of a county commissioners court, and of a public school board or a report of or debate and statements made in any of those proceedings; or (D) the proceedings of a public meeting dealing with a public purpose, including statements and discussion at the meeting or other matters of public concern occurring at the meeting; [and]
(2) publication of allegations made by a third party regarding matters of public concern, regardless of the truth or falsity of the allegations; and
(3) reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of an official act of a public official or other matter of public concern published for general information.
(c) This section does not abrogate or lessen any other defense, remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional, statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions.
(d) This section shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent fully.
Civil Penalties for Frivolous Patent Claims – SB 1457
This bill also looks like it might be headed for passage. The pertinent part of the bill states:
Sec. 17.952. BAD FAITH CLAIM OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT PROHIBITED.
(a) A person may not send to an end user located or doing business in this state a written or electronic communication that is a bad faith claim of patent infringement.
(b) A communication is a bad faith claim of patent infringement if the communication includes a claim that the end user or a person affiliated with the end user has infringed a patent and is liable for that infringement and:
(1) the communication falsely states that the sender has filed a lawsuit in connection with the claim;
(2) the claim is objectively baseless because:
(A) the sender or a person the sender represents does not have a current right to license the patent to or enforce the patent against the end user; (B) the patent has been held invalid or unenforceable in a final judgment or administrative decision; or (C) the infringing activity alleged in the communication occurred after the patent expired; or
(3) the communication is likely to materially mislead a reasonable end user because the communication does not contain information sufficient to inform the end user of:
(A) the identity of the person asserting the claim; (B) the patent that is alleged to have been infringed; and (C) at least one product, service, or technology obtained by the end user that is alleged to infringe the patent or the activity of the end user that is alleged to infringe the patent.
The bill only allows for enforcement by the Attorney General and not private litigants.
We will keep on eye on these any other bills of note.