Yesterday a Tyler jury in Judge K. Nicole Mitchell’s court returned a verdict in Network1 v. HP finding that the asserted claims were not infringed, and were invalid. I don’t have a copy of the verdict yet, but will add it when I get it.
Last week a Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in a patent case involving four claims from three patents.
I’m still a day away from finishing the ILT IP conference in Plano, but already looking forward to Wednesday and Thursday of this week in NYC where I’ll be celebrating my 21st anniversary while participating in a panel Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media at PLI’s 2017 Patent Litigation program.
I say “I” because I am fairly certain that Jamie will find something to do in midtown Manhattan other than watch me talk about jury research. But we’ll see if there’s a place open for dinner after I finish, and mark 21 years.
There’s no paper on this one, although my co-panelist Daniel Wolfe with DecisionQuest has prepared slides. I’ll just be opining on what I’ve seen be effective, and recent trends on the subject. I typically handle voir dire in the cases I’m involved in (I already know I’ll get laughed at for calling it “vore dyer” but it goes with the territory) so I may have a little to offer on the subject on what information on jurors is helpful, how to use it, and some potential land mines in collecting it.
I’m sure I’ll be up early that morning, since EDTX Judge Roy Payne is on the judge panels that morning. Maybe I can pick up some pointers on appearing in his court.
As I’ve posted previously, I am presenting tomorrow morning at the ILT IP seminar on The Effect of TC Heartland on Patent Venue. The paper got a little lengthy, even though I really only addressed a small number of post-TC Heartland cases. My defense is that I wanted to discuss the issues that have come up post-TCH using illustrative cases, rather than brief every decision finding venue proper or improper.
The slides, candidly, got away from me, but I had a lot – and I mean a lot – of charts on filing statistics that hopefully show some useful trends. Plus this is just going to be a fun presentation (because I’m just that boring) so I added a bit of what I consider humor. And I don’t really think 130 slides is too many for a 45 minute presentation, do you?
I hope subscribers find them useful. And as Judge Andy Hanen of the SDTX once told an audience regarding one of my papers, which he’d relied on in preparing a presentation on federal procedural issues: It’s a great review of the subject, and it’s also great for curing insomnia.
Enjoying this morning’s sessions at the IP seminar at CAIL in Plano. Good morning updates on subject matter areas, and right now I’m listening to EDTX Judges Mazzant, Johnson and Love on the judges panel. This afternoon is a in-house counsel panel, followed by three ethics presentations (which attendees are telling me they really like having on the first day).
Slides are locked and loaded for tomorrow’s presentation on TC Heartland, and I will post both the paper and slides shortly.
Tomorrow is, of course the two track morning, with prosecution in the big room, and litigation in the hall classroom, following by lunch presentation on jury presentation in patent cases. That, in turn, is followed by panels on (1) 101; (2) IP in China; (3) New Frontiers in IP; and (4) IPRs.
Finally wrapped up my paper on TC Heartland this morning for next week’s seminar – will have it posted with the associated slides after I prepare the slides tomorrow afternoon (isn’t that what Saturdays are for?) One of the last cases I added was one of the most interesting, since it involved a court’s finding that a third party’s business location qualified as a regular and established place of the defendant, which is shaping up to be the Holy Grail of venue findings.
I am in mad scientist mode this afternoon, frantically combing my office for cases, articles, blog posts and other factoids for my paper The Effect of TC Heartland on Patent Venue for next week’s ILT seminar in Plano, and noticed this little Halloween gem from an EDTX judge on the potentially crucial issue of when you can impute a “regular and established place of business” from one corporation to another. You know, sort of like … well, you get the idea.
Today’s post celebrates the Cowboys defense’s “lites out” performance yesterday against Kansas City (okay, aside from one play) with an examination of some interesting holdings with respect to an improper venue motion in an EDTX case involving a party named … Lites Out. (I live for this stuff – you know that).
I am spending what I assume is a beautiful day outside in Austin moderating the afternoon’s sessions at UTCLE’s annual civil litigation conference. So far this afternoon I have enjoyed Frank Guerra talk about opening and closing statements, followed by Brittany Stanton and Josh Sandler talking about demonstrative evidence. It is perhaps a comment on litigation today that Frank had 30 minutes for the crown jewel of trials, while Brittany and Josh are luxuriating in 45 minutes for demonstratives. But both are great. After the break we’ll have sessions on difficult witnesses and jury selection, followed by ethics Jeopardy, which is always fun (but more fun if you have a ringer in the audience advocating for the wrong answers – we do that at EDTX bench/bars, and it’s always fun watching attendees when that happens.. There’s another day and a half of good stuff to come, with updates in numerous fields.
2017 has been a golden year for 101 motions in the Eastern District of Texas, with the reported grant rate – at least for the six month period from last fall through this spring – hovering at 75%, compared to 18% in Delaware. It’s even triple the 25% grant rate during the same period in the Northern District of Texas, according to the below table from Bilksiblog.com. Last week saw another negative data point on 101 motions for plaintiffs, as Judge Gilstrap granted a 101 motion on one patent – and on a claim that the PTAB had declined to institute review on – 45 days after the motion was filed, and stayed the case as to several others pending PTAB proceedings.