The first EDTX jury trial in the COVID- 19 era in Judge Mazzant’s court shows how the challenges are being met.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court found for USAA in its second trial this afternoon. The verdict is different than last fall’s $200 million in a couple of ways.
No, that’s not a legal concept – it means there’s been a jury verdict in the Implicit case.
A Marshall jury found that Wells Fargo Bank infringed on two of USAA’s patents relating to technology that allows users to deposit checks using mobile devices and awarded USAA $200 million.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court found the asserted claims invalid and not infringed yesterday evening. Spectators found the new courtroom benches to have excellent lumbar support.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court recently returned a verdict in this case involving patent and other claims going both ways.
This time the verdict is from Tyler, where a jury passed on a claim that had been stayed previously while proceedings played themselves out at the PTAB. The jury found the single asserted claim infringed, that the claim wasn’t shown by clear and convincing evidence to be invalid, and assessed damages of $1.5 million. I have attached the verdict form and some other tidbits I thought might be of interest on the stay issue.
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.
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.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court rendered a verdict Friday in a patent case involving claims by Intellectual Ventures against defendants T-Mobile and Ericsson.