Ericsson $75 million verdict reinstated; damages enhanced $25 million; no attorneys fees

After a four-day trial in December, a Marshall jury in Judge Roy Payne’s court found that Defendant TCL willfully infringed claims 1 and 5 of United States Patent No. 7,149,510 asserted by Plaintiff Ericsson by selling phones and devices equipped with the Google Android operating system, and the jury awarded $75 million as a lump sum royalty.

The court previously ordered a new trial on damages after finding Ericsson’s damages theory unreliable, but last Thursday the Court reconsidered that order, reinstated the jury’s verdict in full, and resolved all other remaining disputes, i.e. TCL’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and Ericsson’s motions for enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.

12(c) Motion to Dismiss Under Section 101 Denied

Seems like just last week that I summarized where we were on local decisions after the Federal Circuit held that some Section 101 issues were questions of fact.  Oh wait, it was just last week.  Well, we have another one – this time within an order denying a Section 101 motion at the pretrial stage, this time explicitly concluding that there were issues of fact that precluded dismissal as to two of the three asserted patents.

The Gatekeeper

A couple of Daubert rulings today put me in mind of Ghostbusters.  Remember the Gatekeeper and the Keymaster? Well, the outcome of these “gatekeeper” motions may or may not have been as catastrophic to the parties in these cases – it’s usually difficult to tell with the part in/ part out rulings – but as usual they do provide some insight into why some opinions are ruled in or out, and some useful guidance on which challenges are worth making and which aren’t..

How Many College Degrees Do You Need to Save a PDF?

The answer appears to be more than three. Just in case others are having the same issue I posted about the other day, the EDTX IT staff was able to identify the problem I was having with pdfs, and I wanted to post on what they found out.  It’s not an issue with the court or with the ECF system – as my wife and assistant could have told me, it’s user error. If you are using Chrome as your browser, and save pdfs (can be from ECF or a website – doesn’t matter) by using right click and “print to pdf”, apparently the newer version of something has decided to not save a fully functional version, but is instead  “flattening” the resulting pdfs so that they can no longer be searched, highlighted, or copied from. The solution is to use the “download” icon at top right – when the document is downloaded as a pdf it retains full functionality.