Judge Payne recommended denying Defendant Amazon’s summary judgment motion, finding that Plaintiff Edge Networking owns the asserted patents, has standing, and may proceed with its patent claims against Amazon. This content is restricted to subscribers
Judge Gilstrap entered an amended final judgment for Anonymous Media Research Holdings against Samsung, adding a calculated prejudgment interest award to the jury’s $78,512,999 patent infringement verdict. To recap, the jury found that Samsung infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,719,848 and 10,963,911, rejected Samsung’s invalidity defenses, and awarded AMRH $78,512,999 in reasonable royalty damages. The jury allocated 52 percent of the award to the ’848 patent and 48 percent to the ’911 patent. This content is restricted to subscribers
Judge Albright denied Defendant Tesla’s motion to transfer Plaintiff Bulletproof’s AutoShift patent case to the Northern District of California, holding that Tesla failed to show that the California forum was clearly more convenient. This content is restricted to subscribers
A Waco jury in Judge Alan Albright’s court returned a verdict mixed to the defendant’s liking, which included findings of infringement and invalidity. However the jury also found for the plaintiff on the defendants antitrust claims, and inequitable conduct claim (yes, it was in there) so it wasn’t a complete loss. This content is restricted to subscribers
In June a Marshall jury in Judge Schroeder’s court rendered a verdict for plaintiff Aspen Networks Inc. in a patent infringement case against defendant Verizon Wireless, finding Verizon infringed all six asserted claims, and assessed $190 million in damages. The jury found that the defendant had not proven any of the claims invalid by clear and convincing evidence. The parties have now agreed on a postverdict briefing schedule and a mediator and Judge Schroeder has set a hearing on postverdict motions November 4 in Texarkana. This content is restricted to subscribers
Judge Jordan denied the remand motions filed by the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant had shown the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that the Court had jurisdiction over the removed case. The case is of interest because unlike most removal and remand disputes it focuses not on diversity of the parties but on the amount on controversy requirement, and specifically how to value requested injunctive relief. This content is restricted to subscribers