Tyler jury verdict

A Tyler jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court rendered a verdict in a patent case Friday afternoon, finding that the defendant directly infringed, and further finding willful infringement, and rejecting the invalidity defenses of lack of written description or enablement.  The jury awarded the plaintiff $4.1 million. Just how big of a win this actually was might be made clearer by the post on Judge Love’s opinion excluding a damages expert’s supplementation on the issue of indirect infringement – because I don’t see that indirect infringement was even submitted in the attached verdict.

Microsoft wins XBox patent trial in Marshall after declining to challenge venue post-TC Heartland

Right before I left for vacation I noted that Microsoft declined to assert a venue challenge after TC Heartland came out and instead proceeded to trial.  That turned out to be a good decision, since two weeks later a Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court rendered a complete defense verdict, finding that the asserted claims were not infringed and were invalid.

As I posted a few weeks ago, Microsoft had engaged in an extensive but unsuccessful campaign to get the patents invalidated at the PTO, and the PTO activity actually limited the invalidity defenses that could be asserted at trial.  This didn’t prevent the Marshall jury from finding the claims not infringed and that each was invalid.  (Verdict form is below the fold).

Unless I’ve missed one, that means four plaintiff and four defense verdicts so far this year, with last month’s verdict invalidating one patent but not the other counting as a tie).

Tyler verdict goes both ways in data compression case

Just got back from vacation with the herd and in the mad rush to get out didn’t get a post up on this verdict from Tyler in Judge Schroeder’s court which gave both sides something to cheer about.

I’ll be adding other posts during the day (because of course the first day back in the office after vacation is a leisurely one).  There’s another verdict and we now have three weeks of filing data post TC Heartland to examine.  And no, Collin isn’t possessed, but we are making him sleep with garlic flowers for a few weeks just, you know, in case.

Marshall jury finds for defendant in hip implant case

I was talking with a legal news reporter the other day and she seemed startled that local federal courts try more than patent cases.  While I generally don’t post on them because most readers are more interested in patent cases, they try personal injury, antitrust, civil rights, and criminal cases.  Employment, class action, social security, bankruptcy … you name it, they try it.  The other day when there were three jury trials going at the same time, only one was patent – the others were antitrust and discrimination.

A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict Friday in favor of the defendant in a hip implant case.  While I haven’t followed the case in detail, it appears to be primarily a product liability case, although it appears other causes of action were also alleged, including deceptive trade practices. Robin Richardson summarizes the trial and its outcome here.

Saint Lawrence Communications v. Motorola – verdict

This is not news – I just realized that the post that should have gone out 3/24 did not (possibly because I was getting ready to start a trial the next business day).  I was just organizing materials on recent verdicts and realized that while I knew there had been seven trials so far this year in patent cases – I could only find six verdicts. A Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict in Saint Lawrence’s patent infringement case against Motorola, as analyzed below.

Verdict in antitrust case

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.

Uropep v. Lilly verdict

I am a few days late getting Friday’s verdict in Uropep v. Lilly by a Marshall jury in visiting Federal Circuit Judge Bryson’s court up, but I have a good excuse – we were chaperoning our 8th grade twins’ class trip to DC where they had their picture taken outside the Federal Circuit’s building (hey, it’s technically true).

The jury found induced infringement, that none of the invalidity claims were proved by clear and convincing evidence, and set damages at $20 million.  (More gratuitous shots of my kids to illustrate only remotely related legal concepts to follow).

Second jury (employment discrimination) is back

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.