Halloween 2002. The last time Collin & Parker were both quiet at the same time. Much like these two cases are “staying” quiet thanks to one ruling by Judge O’Connor granting a stay under the “customer suit” exception”, and another denying a motion to lift a stay by Judge Gilstrap.
Judge Payne recommended denial of the motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that the defendant did have a regular and established place of business in the EDTX when suit was filed. He also recommended that the motion to transfer venue to the San Antonio Division of the WDTX be denied, finding that the defendant had not shown that that forum was clearly more convenient. (It’s unclear if this was the map of Texas that the defendant was using).
In a scene somewhat less relaxing than this one canoeing at Fern in December, a Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict in the ATL v. CosMX case last Friday. All four claims were found infringed, but two were proven invalid. At least one of the four was willfully infringed (yes, I know what you’re thinking and no, we don’t know from the verdict form whether it was the ones that were not found invalid). Damages were set at $3,701,108. The jury also found that a letter by the plaintiff was not shown by clear and convincing evidence to be both objectively baseless and an attempt to interfere with a business relationship of a competitor through use of the litigation process, nor did the plaintiff engage in anticompetitive conduct.
Although finding that the defendant met the “low bar” of its initial burden to raise such a defense, Judge Payne recommended denial of the plaintiff’s motion because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the products complied with 35 U.S.C. §287, entitling it to pre-suit damages. This was because the plaintiff did not present arguments that the products were so marked, relying only on its argument that the defendant had not cleared its initial burden.
Judge Payne declined to allow the defendant to add former draft versions of an IEEE standard to its invalidity contentions, finding that it was not diligent in seeking amendment.
Both parties sought leave to amend their contentions in this patent case. Judge Payne granted the plaintiff’s, which sought to revise the language regarding accused products, finding the good cause standard met. The court granted only in part the defendant’s motion to amend its invalidity contentions, however, concluding that while there was good cause as to two of the additional references, there was not as to a third due to lack of diligence.
Judge Mazzant issued findings and conclusions in this trademark-plus case brought by a franchisor against its former franchisees. Essentially, plaintiff lost on its claims, but did obtain injunctive relief.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned the year’s second patent verdict Friday, concluding that the defendant Samsung infringed two of the asserted patents, but not a third, and that the plaintiff hadn’t failed in its FRAND licensing obligations. It awarded $67.5 million in damages for past sales only.
While you’re enjoying this “after and before” photo of the historical Harrison County Courthouse in Marshall before and after its recent restoration, let me tell you about Judge Payne’s order in Netlist v. Micron recommending granting parts of plaintiff’s three motions for summary judgment.
Judge Payne granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions. He had previously struck a proposed amendment claimed permissible without leave as a result of the court’s claim construction ruling under P.R. 3-6(a), but granted this motion, finding that with the benefit of a three-month continuance, good cause for the amendment was shown under P.R. 3-6(b).