Two-Way Media LLC v. AT & T, Inc., 782 F.3d 1311

TWM sued AT&T for infringement of patents 5,778,187 and 5,983,005 in the Southern District of Texas, later transferred to the Western District of Texas.
A jury found infringement and awarded damages; final judgment entered on October 7, 2013.
AT&T filed four post-trial motions (two JMOLs, a new trial) on October 4, 2013; three confidential motions were seal requests.
On November 22, 2013 the district court denied the post-trial motions and entered judgment against AT&T; several orders were sealed.
AT&T argued for extension or reopening of the appeal period under Rule 4(a) due to notice issues with NEFs and docket entries.
The district court denied relief; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion in denying extension or reopening of the appeal period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion under Rule 4(a)(5).	AT&T argues excusable neglect due to incomplete NEFs and reliance on them.	TWM contends counsel had a duty to read orders; no excusable neglect.	No abuse; no excusable neglect shown.
Whether Rule 4(a)(6) reopening of time to appeal was appropriate.	AT&T contends notice defects warrant reopening.	TWM argues AT&T received notice via docket, so reopening is improper.	No abuse; Rule 4(a)(6) relief denied.
What constitutes 'notice of entry' under Rule 4(a)(6) in the CM/ECF era.	Dissent argues corrected docket entries were not properly noticed.	Majority holds notice can be satisfied by accessible docket entries and orders.	Not satisfied; the majority rejects the dissent's view that corrected docket entry notice was required.
Whether FRAP 4(a)(6) is correctly applied under Fifth Circuit law or federal jurisdictional principles.	Dissent argues FRAP 4(a)(6) is jurisdictional and governed by federal law.	Majority applies Fifth Circuit standard for abuse of discretion.	Court applies Fifth Circuit framework; no jurisdictional error found.
Overall timeliness of AT&T's appeal despite NEF/docket corrections.	AT&T never timely appealed under any proper notice trigger.	TWM maintains untimeliness; no basis to reopen or extend.	Affirmed denial of relief; appeal period not reopened.

Wilson v. Atwood Group, 725 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1984) (excusable neglect requires more than mere non-notice; reading orders urged)
Avolio v. County of Suffolk, 29 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1994) (mere failure to discover judgment does not qualify for extension)
Case v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 737 F.2d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (excusable neglect involving misleading order entries)
Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1983) (excusable neglect considerations include attempts to learn decision date)
Khor Chin Lim v. CourtCall Inc., 683 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2012) (notice under Rule 4(a)(6) must be actual receipt of entry)
O’Brien v. Harrington, 233 F.2d 17 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (docket entry substance required to trigger entry of judgment)
United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227 (1958) (entry of judgment requires proper docket entry; returns not sufficient)
Cedar Creek Oil & Gas Co. v. Fidelity Gas Co., 288 F.2d 298 (9th Cir. 1956) (no entry to trigger appeal without proper docketing)
Wheat v. Pfizer, Inc., 31 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 1994) (entry on docket, not public release, starts appeal period)
United States v. Ronne, 414 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1969) (timeliness tied to docket entry date)
Lint v. CourtCall Inc., 683 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2012) (receipt of underlying judgment alone may not satisfy notice)