The last of last week’s Marshall juries came back this week with a $44 million verdict in the antitrust case in Judge Trey Schroeder’s court. The case involved claims by plaintiffs who serviced or refurbished GE anesthesia machines, and as suits a seven day jury trial involved a 32 page verdict, analyzed below.
Congratulations again to plaintiff’s local counsel, and, uh, well, again, there’s no one local to send sympathies to on the losing side.
Yes, Mr. “Twin Peaks” Giant, it is happening again. Another 101 motion has been granted … in part. And even by the same judge (and almost the same day). In this case,
Two patents and six defendants – are the asserted claims invalid as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) or not?
Well, yes, in part. In this case,
A few weeks after Judge Gilstrap’s order in September 2015 dismissing the 101 defendant eDekka litigation on 101 grounds, Magistrate Judge Love recommended granting a similar motion in the Rothschild Location Technologies cases on January 4, 2016 – a recommendation that Judge Schroeder adopted several weeks later. That litigation originally involved around three dozen defendants. Judge Schroeder recently denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in light of the “101 spring” line of cases from the Federal Circuit in 2016 (Enfish et al.) which did not affirm district courts’ decisions to dismiss cases on 101 grounds. In his opinion, Judge Schroeder
I mentioned previously that there’s really no “additur” by which a judge can scratch out the damages number awarded by a jury as insufficient under the evidence and increase it. While a trial court can effectively reduce a verdict via “remittuitur” or via JMOL/MNT practice, the reverse isn’t true. But to use an overused word, patent cases are exceptional in that judges do have the ability to “enhance” damage awards under 35 USC 284 where a jury has made a finding of willful infringement. Such was the case in
A key issue in motions to stay pending inter partes review is often whether a moving defendant is willing to agree that it will be bound by the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 USC 315 (C). In this case, the court had deferred ruling on the motion to stay until the defendant took a position as to whether it would agree to be stayed. In the attached order,
A few weeks ago I posted on Judge Payne’s report and recommendation recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be granted. Judge Schroeder has now adopted the report and recommendation, finding that the defendant had not raised a substantial question regarding noninfringement of the asserted patents or the validity of the asserted patents. The order also found the reports conclusion consistent with other courts that had evaluated the causal nexus requirement in the context of pharmaceutical products, and that the report had identified “hallmark examples” of irreparable harm, which were “more than adequately supported by the record evidence.” The defendants were ordered to submit a brief of no more than five pages providing its position on the amount of an appropriate injunction bond within 14 days, and plaintiff was ordered to file a response within seven days after service of that brief. 216cv491 RWS Mylan Updated OA for PI
Earlier today a Tyler jury in Judge Trey Schroeder’s court returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in this portion of the retrial following the severance of the case, finding that Apple’s FaceTime infringed the seven asserted claims, and set damages at $302,427,950.