A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court rendered a verdict for defendant HTC last Friday. The jury found that none of the asserted claims were infringed, and went home. The verdict is below.
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.
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.
Motions to transfer alleging inconvenience aren’t as common as they were before TC Heartland, but you still see them from time to time. In this case, Judge Mitchell concluded that the relevant factors made the proposed transferee forum in California “clearly more convenient.
We have another data point on whether a prevailing plaintiff gets enhanced damages, as well as whether the case is “exceptional” for purposes of attorneys fees.
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..
With apologies to Dickens, that’s what a motion for exceptional case status under 35 USC 285 is, and we have another interesting EDTX decision on which facts will get you more soup. (Or a beating).
Paradoxically, I’m going to celebrate receiving my second patent this morning (9,955,784 is my new favorite number) with analysis of what’s happening locally regarding the patentable subject matter defense under Section 101 following the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
I have had a few requests for some attention to that specific issue, and wanted to let people know what I’ve seen so far locally.
It’s a sad day with Jason Witten retiring from our beloved Cowboys, so I decided I had to wear the jersey to work. Which made for interesting sidewalk conversation when I asked a herd of lawyers headed past my office how they were expecting their hearing with Judge Gilstrap to go, where they were on the docket, and which pretrial motions they had rulings on already. (This time next week Law.com will probably be running a story about how homeless people in Marshall quiz visiting lawyers about federal civil procedure).
But life goes on … as it did for the parties in this case in which Judge Mazzant entered judgment for $24 million and change following a jury verdict last fall in which the jury found that there was no patent infringement but that there was a breach of contract, specifically a confidentiality agreement, and assessed $15 million in damages.
Well, this is an interesting fact situation. A party’s expert experienced a medical event and it sought to sub in a replacement for trial. At the hearing on the motion the Court determined that it needed more information on whether a replacement was needed. Its solution was set forth in a sua sponte order.