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).

Motion to Strike Expert Reports Granted (in Part)

Judge Gilstrap granted the motions in part, striking an expert’s “analysis” of a letter which provided a legal conclusion, as well as testimony regarding an interrogatory response – because the party had previously agreed it would not refer to it. The court also struck an expert’s discussion of non-infringing alternatives as untimely and ultimately irrelevant in light of the defendant’s decision to offer no damages opinion tying any non-infringing alternative to a proper damages analysis. But there was much that the court deemed admissible, so the order may be useful to practitioners trying to determine what is in and out with respect to expert testimony.

Texarkana Jury Returns Patent Verdict

A Texarkana jury in Judge Robert W. Schroeder III’s court returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Pantech against defendant OnePlus in a case involving 5G wireless technology. It found all ten claims across five patents infringed, and none of the five claims challenged to be invalid. It awarded a total of $10.26 million, concluded that all five patents were infringed willfully, and declined to find that licensed base stations substantially embodied two of the patents – which is the finding the plaintiff sought.

Motion to Dismiss Granted in Part

Judge Gilstrap granted the motion to dismiss the claims of direct infringement, agreeing with Defendant that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the accused products meet each and every element of the two asserted claims. The court also granted the motion as to the pre-suit claims of indirect and willful infringement, but denied the motion in all other respects, and granted leave to replead.