A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s temporary courtroom in the historic county courthouse returned a verdict in favor of a Kilgore mail carrier yesterday in a civil rights employment case, determining that she had been fired for reporting that a black supervisor was mistreating the white female employees. The trial began on Wednesday and finished yesterday. The jury awarded $250,000 in damages for mental and emotional distress. As expected, that’s two down, with the antitrust case before Judge Schroeder resuming next week.
The Marshall cases in trial before juries this week are actually an antitrust, an employment, and a patent case. The patent case before Judge Bryson came back with a verdict for the plaintiff of $20 million Friday evening, breaking the 3-3 tie we’ve had thus far this year in patent verdicts. Congratulations to the plaintiff’s local counsel, and … well defendant didn’t have any local counsel I can send out sympathies to. The case is one that I’ve posted on a couple of times, involving
I promised to follow up on the verdict from last week, and here’s the information. It was a competitor case dealing with
If a plaintiff win followed by a defense win followed by a … bores you, don’t watch verdicts.
This afternoon a jury In Judge Payne’s court in Marshall returned a defense verdict on both infringement and invalidity. That ties EDTX patent verdicts for the year at three each. This isn’t exactly a surprise since the win rate for the last eight years is 49.3%.
I’m out spring breaking with my kids the rest of the week but will post with more details on Monday.
As expected, the Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court rendered a verdict in the Whirlpool case this afternoon. It found all claims willfully infringed, none of the claims shown to be invalid by clear and convincing evidence, and set damages through today at $7.6 million. Assuming my notes are correct, that brings patent verdicts for the year even at two each, slight ahead of the district’s win rate of 43.9% over the past three years. Assuming it goes, next’s week’s trial will be the tiebreaker for the year so far.
I posted Friday about the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in Cioffi v. Google and wanted to add a few more details that may be of interest:
- the verdict is the first for a plaintiff in the three patent cases tried to date in 2017 – the other two have been for defendants.
- the plaintiffs were two individual inventors residing in Richardson, Texas (one was the estate of the inventor) in the EDTX.
- the jury awarded $20 million as a running royalty, not a lump sum; plaintiffs sought $26 million for damages to date, and defendant proposed under a million (as a lump sum I assume) if the jury found infringement.
- the district court had previously granted summary judgment of noninfringement based on claim construction rulings (including finding a key term indefinite), but those constructions were reversed by the Federal Circuit, and a trial was required based on the corrected claim constructions.
In Cioffi, No. 2015-1194 (11/17/15), the Federal Circuit found that that the district court incorrectly construed “web browser process” as requiring a “direct” access capability and incorrectly construed “critical file” as encompassing “critical user files.” It therefore reversed the district court’s claim constructions to the extent they were inconsistent with its findings and reversed the district court’s finding that the ’103 patent was invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
Because the parties had stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s prior constructions, it remanded for further findings pursuant to this opinion, resulting in this trial fifteen months later.
A Tyler jury in Magistrate Judge John Love’s court rendered a defense verdict Friday in a security system case, finding that the accused products did not infringe the asserted claims. The jury also determined that
A Tyler jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict of noninfringement last week in the first EDTX patent trial in 2017. As will be standard on the new website, the verdict is now attached (below), along with more analysis of the case, the trial, the verdict, and, in this case, the interesting procedural context of this ongoing litigation. Where to start? Well, it was a dark and stormy night
Well, it pales in comparison to those billion-dollar verdicts they hand out in medical cases in Delaware, or even to the $85 million verdict from Oregon the last time these two competitors clashed, but a Marshall jury in Judge Roy Payne’s court rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff Arthrex, Inc., a Florida-based maker of orthopedic products against competitor Smith & Nephew Inc. in a case involving allegations of copying of designs for medical implants.
Last week a Beaumont jury in Chief Judge Ron Clark’s court returned a verdict in favor off the plaintiff in Barry v. Medtronic, which dealt with devices used in scoliosis surgeries. It found all the asserted claims infringed and willfully so, and that none of the defensive issues had been shown by clear and convincing evidence. It awarded a total of $20,346,390.