Jury Verdict in Garage Door Opener Case
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict Friday afternoon.
Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap
Motion For Supplemental Hull Plating, Um Damages
The prevailing plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking an additional $2.28 million in supplemental damages (damages through entry of final judgment) to add to the $31.5 awarded by the jury. Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, noting that such an award must be based on actual sales information, and not just a per diem estimate by an expert, and directed the parties to put the proposed judgment back into, um, drydock where they could work out the numbers based on actual sales – and calculate interest accurately based on those numbers.
Marshall Jury Finds For Plaintiff Finesse
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court found for the plaintiff in a two-patent case against Nokia & AT&T arising out of equipment Nokia provided to AT&T.
Motion To Declare Case Exceptional And Award Attorneys Fees
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s opposition to a motion to stay was not objectively unreasonable, and that the petitions it filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and before the PTAB were not frivolous or filed in bad faith.
Order Denying Motion To Change Lead Counsel
The court’s order set out its expectations of lead counsel in a patent case, and laid out the potential consequences of a late change in designation. (Lead is the one on the left – second chair always has that weird look, don’t they?)
“Motion For A Trial” Denied
The court denied this request for what the defendant characterized as a “retroactive bifurcation”after the plaintiff narrowed its claims before trial to two patents, dropping a third.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Of Order Granting Motion To Dismiss For Improper Venue Denied
Plaintiff asked Judge Gilstrap to reconsider his order granting BMW’s motion to dismiss its complaint for improper venue following Federal Circuit’s opinion in In re: Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 28 F.4th 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2022), arguing that rather than dismiss the action against both defendants, the court should’ve dismissed only the domestic entity.
Ericsson v. Apple Settles
The parties to the multi-forum litigation between Ericsson and Apple over the former’s licensing practices settled their disputes shortly before beginning the fifth day of trial in Judge Gilstrap’s court in Marshall Friday. No details about the settlement are available.
Summary Judgment of Invalidity Granted
Judge Gilstrap accepted Magistrate Judge Payne’s report and recommendation and held certain claims of the patents ineligible under § 101. (Yes, the county commissioners think they’ve seceded again).
What Doesn’t Support Attorneys Fees Under Section 285
Judge Gilstrap rejected the defendant’s request for fees following a dispositive claim construction ruling.