Several weeks ago I posted on Judge Albright’s grant of JMOL against plaintiff WSOU during a trial in October (he did the same thing against the same plaintiff in a trial in February). The written opinion on WSOU JMOL #2 came out yesterday and explains the Court’s rationale, which was based on a claim construction issue that arose during trial.
Okay, this was technically not during yesterday’s scheduling conferences, but the courtroom was nearly as crowded. Some 39 lead cases involving 62 cases received Markman and trial settings at the bimonthly scheduling conferences yesterday. But attorneys were not required to appear wearing lights (which is a requirement for participating in the annual Christmas parade. At least if you want to win in your category).
Probably in the eye of the beholder whether these rulings were a positive development, but they definitely decreased entropy in this case brought by Entropic Communications. Judge Payne (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity as to certain prior art defenses (which just FYI isn’t the same thing as a judgment of “validity”); (2) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s Section 101 defense; and (3) denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
A Waco jury in Judge Albright’s court returned a verdict for plaintiff Purdue against ST Microelectronics in a case tried last week. Infringed, not invalid – $32.5 million, awarded as a running royalty through the end of 2022. The jury deliberated 12-13 hours.
Everything is filed under seal, so all we know for certain is that (1) the plaintiff officer / counterclaim defendant didn’t show for the hearing on the motion for sanctions last week; and (2) Judge Payne has now required him to attend trial next month or face contempt or other sanctions. But I can add a little to the barebones order that issued Sunday – media reports that it’s unclear what the sanctions request was based on just means they didn’t know where to look. It appears it won’t be a dull day in Marshall.
Judge Albright denied this motion seeking a fourth extension to answer the lawsuit, noting that no good cause had been shown.
Judge Ezra found that he had specific personal jurisdiction in this trademark case under a stream of commerce theory.
Judge Payne denied the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on the defendant’s nonpatent counterclaims and two of their affirmative defenses. Yes, this really is what the courthouse square in Marshall looks like.
A Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court found that defendant Samsung did not infringe the four asserted claims, but that Samsung had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that they were invalid.
Judge Payne concluded that Dell failed to show that this action could have been brought in NDCA, that NDCA was not “clearly more convenient”, that the motion was filed late, which has consequences, and gosh there was so much in that reply brief, wasn’t there?
