“As a final point, the Court does not observe, based only on the evidence presently before it, anything exceptional about the parties’ conduct in this case.”

In any context but patent litigation, this would be a bad thing. But this quote from an opinion granting in part a voluntary dismissal in a patent case but making clear that the Section 285 issues – NOT THAT THERE ARE ANY – are reserved for later reminded me of one of the epic scenes in a Monty Python film where John Cleese unsuccessfully tries to bring order to a stoning. But I guess I could talk about the order as well.


The plaintiff in this patent case brought a motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims of patent infringement (no, not noninfringement – I know what you’re thinking), promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The Court’s report and recommendations, later adopted by the district court, provides a useful foray into the “dancing backwards” world of counterclaims.

EDTexweblog renewals

Many subscribers’ accounts are up for renewal this month – an artifact of the new blog platform starting up in March two years ago – so I wanted to post instructions on how to renew when you get an “expired” message. If you previously selected auto-renewal, you don’t need to do anything. But if you didn’t, the best way to renew is to be logged out of the weblog and visit the sign-up page: https://edtexweblog.com/signup.php Make sure you use the same email and password as the current subscription. Again, individual subscriptions are $299, and there is a sliding scale for firms or IP sections wishing to purchase multiple subscriptions. Government accounts remain free, as is the daily email with information on the day’s posts. If you run into any issues, email me at michaelsmith@siebman.com and I’ll get them sorted out.

Oil field technology patent verdict

I’m posting a few pictures from our trip to the Capitol with the local Chamber of Commerce (and our two youngest boys, who served as House pages) last week as they seem appropriate for a verdict from a patent case involving oil field technology. The verdict came from Texarkana last week, where a jury in Judge Schroeder’s court rendered a defense verdict on infringement. Invalidity wasn’t submitted.

“In hilariously petulant move, Apple shuts Texas stores and reopens them few miles down the road – for patent reasons” – The Register

The article from the Register is good, and the title is great, but the image is magnificent. I’ve never pulled my credit card out faster to license an image. Go home and celebrate if you don’t have this face looking at you. Or even if you do. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/27/apple_texas_retail_stores_patents/

Retrial on damages

Back in September of 2016, after a five-day jury trial in this case, a jury unanimously found that the defendant had willfully infringed certain claims of two patents and that the claims were not shown to be invalid and awarded damages of $2.8 million, later enhanced by $456,000 (16% of the verdict – 8% of the potential enhancement under Section 284). Defendant filed a motion for new trial on damages issues dealing with apportionment, which was granted. On retrial, the jury awarded $3.49 million in damages, although using a different time period from the original trial. The decisions(s) in this case that I’ve posted below are full of information on patentable subject matter (of course), as well as damages, willful infringement and enhancement.

Apple is closing its Frisco and Plano stores and opening a new one in Galleria Dallas – analysis

Lots of news in the last days over Apple’s opening/closing of stores in the Dallas area, so I wanted to compile some links to articles about the change and provide some filing and other statistics that might provide some perspective, including whether any of the eight (8) cases filed in the EDTX against Apple last year (down from 43 the year before TC Heartland) might have had anything to do with it.

“Just How Big is Collin County’s Boom?” – Dallas Morning News

Readers interested in the demographics of the western part of the EDTX might be interested in this article in yesterday’s Dallas paper, which notes that by 2050 Collin County is expected to have between 2.4 and 3.5 million residents. For comparison purposes, Dallas County, which includes Dallas, its first ring or suburbs and parts of its second (Plano straddles Dallas and Collin counties) currently has 2.6 million residents. According to the article, much of the county’s growth is driven by businesses moving to the area. “In the last several years, dozens of companies have set up shop in Collin County,” Lloyd Potter, the Texas state demographer and a public policy professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, was quoted as saying. “Toyota has settled in Plano. Raytheon is in McKinney. The Dallas Cowboys are in Frisco.” https://www.dallasnews.com/life/curious-texas/2019/02/19/just-big-collin-countys-boom-curious-texas-investigates I have some additional metrics that I thought might provide a better take on the economic growth in the are.