Ecobee verdict
A Waco jury in Judge Albright’s court returned a partial verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded $5.4 million in damages.
Month: June 2023
Summary Judgment Granted in Fintiv
The history of this case goes back several years, but today’s order was the most important of them all. After hearing further argument on Defendant Apple’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, Judge Albright determined that his prior order denying Apple’s motion should be vacated. Accordingly, he granted Apple’s motion, and cancelled jury selection and trial, currently set for July 10, 2023.
101 Motion Denied
Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion for partial dismissal asserting that three of the four patents in suit were directed to ineligible subject matter, holding that at the motion to dismiss phase, and in the absence of claim construction, the court could not agree with the defendant position without having first examined what a person in ordinary skill of the art would interpret the terms to mean.
Redacted Venue Rulings & Challenges to Plaintiff’s Standing Postverdict
A couple of recent posts on these topics elicited some helpful commentary from readers that I wanted to pass along to their colleagues.
Motion To Dismiss For Improper Venue Denied
Judge Payne denied the motion, which was predicated not on the defendant’s not having a regular and established place of business in the district – it admitted that it did – but its argument that “that property is not used for the accused systems.” Even assuming that the argument was correct, the court found sufficient evidence of allegedly infringing activity, and denied the alternative motion to transfer the case to the SDTX.
Additional Briefing on Plaintiff’s Standing Ordered After Verdict
Last week’s verdict in Orange v. Autel was followed yesterday by a post-verdict briefing order issued sua sponte by Judge Gilstrap that directed the parties to submit additional briefing on issues of the location of sales (and thus the plaintiff’s standing to bring the case).
NDCA No Because (Redacted); Austin, Yes
Judge Albright denied Meta’s motion to transfer to California, but granted the motion to transfer to Austin since both parties agreed that that would be more convenient– and the case will remain on his docket. Of interest, the parties’ assertions and the Court’s conclusions are heavily redacted, meaning that a future litigant against Meta will have a hard time identifying what it asserted and what contentions the court found wanting – especially regarding witnesses – in this prior case.
The Six Million Dollar (Willful Infringement) Verdict
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court rendered a complete plaintiff’s verdict in this case. It found the asserted claims infringed, willfully so, rejected the invalidity grounds, and awarded $6,616,397 in damages, which I understand was the plaintiff’s request.
More Austin Docket Reallocation to Judge Albright
Personally, I think my graduate recognition ceremony at the National WW II Museum and a week on campus at Baylor Law School for the Litigation Management LLM were the most newsworthy events of the past week. But some might think that the news that Judge Pitman has referred 99 cases from the Austin Division of the WDTX – including 18 patent cases – to Judge Albright is.
The “Universal Practice” Applies in Tyler, Too
Judge Kernodle denied the motion to stay pending IPR, noting that the PTAB had not instituted review yet, making the simplification of the issues “purely speculative.”