Yesterday a Tyler jury in Judge Robert W. Schroeder III’s court returned a verdict in Network1 v. HP finding that the asserted claims were not infringed, and were invalid.
Last week a Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in a patent case involving four claims from three patents.
While I was on my merry way to Waco Friday afternoon for the 25th anniversary of the Class of 1992 (I graduated from Baylor Law that February) a Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court was wrapping up deliberations in a patent infringement case.
My new favorite verdict form is the one from this case, where the foreperson wrote in “no infringement”. Alas for the defendants, they wrote in $15 million in damages and $2 million on attorneys fees on the rest of the claims, as detailed below.
A Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court rendered a verdict Friday afternoon in a patent trial involving side scan sonar technology. (Whether it involved this image of the German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin at the bottom of the Baltic Sea I can’t say, but as the plaintiff is a Norwegian company, I like to hope that it did, because as side scan sonar images go, it’s pretty cool). The verdict is interesting because the damages award includes components for a running royalty (as opposed to a lump sum) and lost profits as discussed below.
A Marshall jury in Judge Robert W. Schroeder III’s court returned a split verdict on infringement yesterday in a case involving an Israeli defense contractor’s patents on broadband technology that has already seen one trip to the Federal Circuit on the TC Heartland improper venue issue.
A Sherman jury in Judge Mazzant’s court rendered a verdict in a patent case Friday afternoon, finding for the defendant on both infringement and invalidity.
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.
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).
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.