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.
A Tyler jury in Magistrate Judge John Love’s court returned a verdict in Chrimar v. Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise, USA, Inc. last week. The defendant had stipulated to infringement, so the jury was just presented with invalidity, damages, and a couple of enforceability theories. The jury found that the claims hadn’t been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be invalid, set damages at $324,558.34, and parenthetically noted that this was $1.2067 per part. It went on to find that Chrimar had not been shown to have committed fraud on the defendant, nor had it breached a contract with the IEEE. Had it answered “yes” to the last question it would have answered another question asking it where the defendant was a third party to that contract.
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.
Chalk another one up for the double loss column for plaintiffs. After a pair of plaintiff wins last week in Tyler and Marshall, a patent plaintiff lost on both infringement and invalidity today. A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court in MTel v. HTC found Intel’s asserted claims not infringed, and also concluded that HTC had shown be clear and convincing evidence that they were invalid.
Last week was apparently Nokia Engineer Week in the Eastern District, as two juries found for two plaintiff patent holders asserting patents by Nokia engineers. As I posted last week, on Thursday a Tyler jury in Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell’s court found that Apple willfully infringed a patent by a Nokia engineer on wireless communication technology and awarded $22 million. On Friday, a Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court assessed damages in a retrial of a March 2016 patent trials at $2.3 million. Why Nokia patents? Industry followers may recall that Nokia sold off large numbers of its patents beginning in 2011 after selling its cell phone business to Microsoft. While I do not know what the respective splits any proceeds from last week’s verdicts would be, a 2011 story reported that proceeds from at least some of the patents would be divided in thirds between the acquiring entity related to the plaintiff in last week’s case, Nokia and Microsoft. See Mosaid Acquires 2,000+ Nokia Patents, Will Handle Licensing & Litigation For A Cut. Is This That Damages Retrial Of Which You Spoke? Actually, no. Readers may recall that in March a Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court also found against LG and in favor of Core and awarded $3.5 million in damages. In August, Judge Gilstrap set aside the damages verdict in that case, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages verdict, and ordered a retrial. This is not that case. It involved smartphone user interfaces, while last week’s case involved patents dealing with battery life and voice quality.