Jury Verdict Set Aside

Judge Gilstrap granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, setting aside the $6.6 million jury verdict that the plaintiff obtained last June. The reason was the court’s recent determination that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict that the defendant’s products were not sold in the US. The tale is a lengthy one.

Motion to Stay Granted

Judge Gilstrap granted the defendant’s renewed motion to stay pending IPR under “[t]he specific facts of this unique case”, noting that review had been instituted on all of the claims of all of the asserted patents on multiple grounds, the Markman hearing had not yet been held, and while the defendant “could have acted sooner” it wasn’t enough to change the outcome. The court also noted that it didn’t matter that the PTAB had not expressly characterized the merits of the grounds for institution.

Train Wreck Averted – Marshall Jury Returns Verdict in Damages Retrial

The Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict in the G+ v. Samsung case yesterday, awarding $61 million for the infringement of the first patent and $81 million for the second – the full amount requested. That’s up from the first trial, in which they awarded $67.5 million, but in a fashion that indicated to Judge Gilstrap that they were confused over the reasonable royalty v. lump sum question, which would lead to a train wreck trying to determine whether future damages should be awarded.

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).