VLSI v. Intel Updates & Link Roundup
UPDATED 7PM CST.
First, a few short updates regarding VLSI v. Intel:
- Although unusual, Central Texas sees occasional wintry weather—and we’re in the middle of some of it now. So because of ice on the roads (plus Monday’s federal holiday for George Washington’s birthday), voir dire before Magistrate Judge Manske was rescheduled from yesterday to next Tuesday morning, at 9:30AM. As of this writing our understanding, based on limited available information, is that opening statements may now occur Tuesday afternoon.
- Scott Graham of Texas Lawyer cites both Mark and yours truly in his deep-dive preview of the forthcoming trial: All Eyes on Albright: Elite Lawyers Descend on Waco for This Judge’s 2nd Patent Trial
- There appears to be late-breaking motion practice on the VLSI-Intel docket: Yesterday, in a sealed filing, Intel indicated it was filing a “Response to Plaintiff’s Opposed Supplemental Motion in Limine Regarding Fortress Investment Group LLC”—so it appears that VLSI has some concerns about the extent to which its ties to Fortress may be put at issue before the jury. For those unfamiliar with the relationship between VLSI and Fortress, here’s some example coverage from Richard Lloyd of IAM from back in 2018: Fortress-affiliated entity doubles down on litigation campaign against Intel. The Fortress-VLSI affiliation is also at issue in the Delaware Chancery Court license-declaration action that we briefly covered a few weeks back (see the last paragraph).
- Ryan Davis of Law360 covers Judge Albright’s Notice of Trial Procedures that will be in place for next week’s VLSI v. Intel extravaganza, including detailed safety protocols: Albright Orders Daily COVID-19 Tests At Intel Patent Trial (no subscription required, given COVID-related content). Of particular note from those Trial Procedures, especially for those readers not within easy driving distance of Waco: “The public is permitted to listen to the trial proceedings by telephone. The number to access both voir dire and trial proceedings is 1-(551)-285-1373, Meeting ID 160 438 6723, Passcode 777035.” But also note that “Recording of the proceedings in any wa[y] is not permitted.” (emphasis original)
Here’s this week’s non-VLSI-related coverage of the Waco Division, including a couple other mini-updates re: SK hynix v. Intel and Uniloc 2017 v. Apple:
- Following the SK hynix saga that we covered last week, Hynix indeed filed a second mandamus petition with the Federal Circuit this past Monday. Law360 has the coverage here: SK Hynix Urges Fed. Circ. to Review Albright Transfer Denial (subscription required). We’ll keep you posted on the outcome.
- You likely recall the dustup caused by the Federal Circuit’s dueling November mandamus opinions (majority, dissent) in In re: Apple. Last week Law360 covered the Federal Circuit’s unanimous denial of Uniloc 2017’s petition for rehearing en banc: Full Fed. Circ. Won’t Revisit Transfer Of Apple Patent Case (subscription required). As a postscript, this past Monday Judge Albright held a hearing with the parties, following which the Court ordered transfer of the case to the Northern District of California (ECF No. 115), thus presumably closing the Waco chapter of this dispute.
- Danielle Williams and Thomas M. Melsheimer of Winston & Strawn share some Observations on the Waco Division’s Growing Prominence on Law.com (subscription required)
- Included in this patent litigation roundup by John W. Smith T (not a typo!) of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings is a brief summary of happenings in the Waco Division: A Crystal Ball, Sort Of
And here are a couple miscellaneous links of interest:
- Hector Agdeppa and Theo Mayer of Sheppard Mullin examine an interesting recent Federal Circuit decision, in which the patentee’s acceptance of a noninfringement verdict (including forgoing its right to appeal) mooted a challenger’s attempt to appeal the validity findings from a partially unsuccessful IPR: Cementing Victory by Accepting Defeat: When Can a Patentee’s Infringement Disclaimer Moot an Appeal of an IPR Decision?
- We don’t often (or ever?) see them at issue in the Waco Division, but Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog has a nice analysis of Why and When Design Patents are Useful
We’ll see you next week with coverage of VLSI-Intel!
* * *
* * *
Disclaimer: We share these links because we think they’re worth reading. Our doing so does not necessarily imply that we endorse any of the viewpoints expressed by the authors (unless we’re the authors).Like (0)