I am [in the] GROOT [Processor]

Three postverdict orders in this case dealing with JMOLs, new trials (damages,  infringement and invalidity) & interest raise somewhat intertwined issues.  What they didn’t raise was sufficient grounds for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial in derogation of the jury’s verdict.  (In this case GROOT is a processor, specification or widget of some kind that the experts felt either did or didn’t have or do something, so I’m not totally making up the reference).

Motion For Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement Granted

This order follows up on Judge Albright’s ruling at final pretrial conference in this case striking portions of the plaintiff’s expert report on infringement for substituting new infringement theories, and accordingly dismissing the plaintiff’s case with prejudice.  In response to a motion for reconsideration, it vacates and supersedes the prior order.

Motion to Strike Expert Reports Granted (in Part)

Judge Gilstrap granted the motions in part, striking an expert’s “analysis” of a letter which provided a legal conclusion, as well as testimony regarding an interrogatory response – because the party had previously agreed it would not refer to it. The court also struck an expert’s discussion of non-infringing alternatives as untimely and ultimately irrelevant in light of the defendant’s decision to offer no damages opinion tying any non-infringing alternative to a proper damages analysis. But there was much that the court deemed admissible, so the order may be useful to practitioners trying to determine what is in and out with respect to expert testimony.

Texarkana Jury Returns Patent Verdict

A Texarkana jury in Judge Robert W. Schroeder III’s court returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Pantech against defendant OnePlus in a case involving 5G wireless technology. It found all ten claims across five patents infringed, and none of the five claims challenged to be invalid. It awarded a total of $10.26 million, concluded that all five patents were infringed willfully, and declined to find that licensed base stations substantially embodied two of the patents – which is the finding the plaintiff sought.