Month: July 2026

On Remand From the Federal Circuit Following EcoFactor Judge Wolfe Denies Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ Damages Expert; Strikes Portions of Defense Damages Expert Report

msmithDamages, Experts, TEXIPLAWBLOG, WDTX, WDTX Cases

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., is on remand from the Federal Circuit which directed the district court to apply the standards of EcoFactor. Judge Wolfe, who replaced Judge Alan Albright on the Waco federal bench while the case was on appeal, denied defendant CH Lighting’s motion to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ damages expert Justin Blok, but granted plaintiff Super Lighting’s motion to strike paragraphs 142–147 of defense expert Drew Mooney’s report and granted both parties’ motions in limine in their entirety. The . . . This content is restricted to subscribers

Read more

“Patent Damages” Panel at State Bar Annual Meeting with Tiffany Lewis of Stoneturn

msmithDamages, Papers/Seminar Presentations, TEXIPLAWBLOG

I appreciated the opportunity to work with Tiffany Lewis of StoneTurn on a panel on patent damages at the recent State Bar Annual Meeting in Houston. Tiffany got rave reviews for her presentation on the subject at the February Advanced IP seminar in Austin, so I invited myself to turn her presentation into a panel. In fact, when we discovered we couldn’t advance slides seated it turned into a pretty fair approximation of a lawyer and damages expert at trial, with me throwing softballs from the podium and Tiffany knocking them into the Astros’ nearby park. Tiffany covered developments over the last year, most notably EcoFactor and its effect on the patent damages landscape. (Or not, which was sort of the point). This content is restricted to subscribers

Read more

Section 101 Motion Denied; Pre-Suit Willfulness and Indirect Infringement Claims Dismissed

msmithMotions to Dismiss, TEXIPLAWBLOG, Unpatentable - 35 USC 101, WDTX, WDTX - Austin, Willful infringement

Judge Albright granted Marvell’s motion to dismiss in part, dismissing Network System Technologies’ pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims without prejudice, but denying Marvell’s § 101 challenge at the pleading stage. This content is restricted to subscribers

Read more

EDTX Sanctions Attorney for Filing Brief With Fictitious AI-Generated Citations

msmithEDTEXWEBLOG, Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, Sanctions, Sherman

“Courts have been flooded with cases involving fraudulent legal citations caused by reliance on generative artificial intelligence (“AI”)” Judge Mazzant wrote. “Regrettably, this is one of them. For the reasons herein, the Court will issue sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel”. The Court sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel after finding that her summary judgment response contained a fictitious case, fake quotations from real cases, and unsupported legal propositions. The sanctions included (1) a public reprimand, (2) service of the order on all district and magistrate judges in the district, (3) a $5,000 penalty, (4) striking Plaintiff’s summary judgment response, albeit with permission to file a corrected response, (5) required CLE on ethical AI use or candor to the court, (6) a one-year requirement that counsel include a certification verifying all legal authorities in future filings before the Court. And finally, (7) counsel was also ordered to review all filings bearing her signature from January 1, 2026, through the date of the order in all state or federal courts and certify that she had verified the legal authorities in those filings. The attorney was separately sanctioned $7,000 in the defendant’s fees (not in the main order because it was sua sponte sanctions).

Read more