Author name: Western District

The Court has adopted new dial-in credentials to observe voir dire and trial proceedings, as follows: Dial-in: 669-254-5252 Meeting ID: 161 606 4451 Passcode: 186276 Zoom attendees will be automatically muted upon dialing in. Here’s an attempt at a one-touch sequence for those reading the blog on your mobile device: +1 669-254-5252,,1616064451#,,#,,186276# We have also been informed that the Court will update its protocols for addressing sealed portions of the trial proceedings. Rather than asking attendees to exit the call, the Court will instead mute its own outgoing audio feed. (So note that this means that if you dial in during a […]

Last week’s winter weather has continued to hit Texas (an uncharacteristic 4+” of snow in Austin last night, and more in parts farther north), with temperatures in Waco not expected to stay consistently far above freezing until Friday or Saturday! Almost all flights have also been canceled, as well. In light of this, Judge Albright has adjourned the VLSI v. Intel trial until next week. Per the Court’s order issued yesterday, voir dire will now commence at 9:00AM Monday, February 22, “with Jury Trial to follow immediately afterward before Judge Alan D Albright.” As always, we’ll keep you posted of any further

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

So…the Link Update took an unscheduled January vacation—but now we’re back, proverbially tanned, rested, and ready. And at least for this go-round we’ll try to atone with a slightly-more-comprehensive-than-usual selection of links for you:  Scott Graham of Law.com cites Mark’s coverage of Judge Albright’s denial of SK hynix’s motion to transfer (and paraphrases The Clash) in this week’s Skilled in the Art Column: Should I Be Stayed or Should I Go from the WD-Texas (subscription required) Winston & Strawn’s WacoWatch also covered the SK hynix appellate and district court proceedings: Federal Circuit Stays All Proceedings Pending WDTX Ruling on Motion To Transfer Stayed For A

Yesterday Judge Albright issued a 17-page order denying Defendant SK hynix’s motion to transfer venue to the Central District of California (“CDCA”) or alternatively to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). As we covered two days ago, the Federal Circuit issued mandamus relief to SK hynix holding that “the petition is granted to the extent that the district court must stay all proceedings concerning the substantive issues in the case until such time that it has issued a ruling on the transfer motion capable of providing meaningful appellate review of the reasons for its decision.” Well, Judge

Earlier today the Federal Circuit granted a petition for mandamus in In re: SK hynix, the fourth in a recent string of significant orders concerning transfer-motion practice before Judge Albright. However, unlike the Federal Circuit’s prior orders in In re: Apple and In re: Intel (parts 1 and 2), this ruling doesn’t concern the substance of the transfer request. Rather, the Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Moore, instead saw merit in petitioner SK hynix’s complaint that the District Court was taking too long to rule on its pending transfer motion—and thus granted SK hynix’s alternative request for relief, by staying all further substantive proceedings until

The first Waco Division IP trial of 2022 wrapped up last Friday, following conclusion of the trial in NCS Multistage v. Nine Energy Service. This was the first oil-and-gas-related patent dispute to proceed to trial before Judge Albright. Given the holiday weekend, openings were on Tuesday morning; summations were delivered late morning on Friday; and the jury returned its verdict Friday afternoon. For reasons not specified, dial-in information was not broadly disseminated in the Court’s trial procedures, but rather was given out based on “contact[ing] the law clerks for the dial in information to observe the trial proceeding.” On conclusion of

Based on yet another Federal Circuit mandamus order issued earlier today, we now know the answer to the question we posed a few weeks back, about when the VLSI v. Intel trial scheduled before Judge Albright is actually likely to open. To review, in November and December, we covered: Judge Albright’s decision to transfer the trial in VLSI v. Intel from Austin to Waco (after having previously transferred the case from Waco to Austin), in light of COVID-related restrictions that rendered the Austin federal courthouse indefinitely unavailable; The Federal Circuit’s subsequent mandamus ruling reversing Judge Albright’s transfer order; and  Judge Albright’s follow-on decision to transfer the entire VLSI v. Intel case from Austin

Last Friday Judge Albright invited several lawyers practicing in his court – including us – for a tour and walk-through of his courtroom’s newly upgraded technology. Judge Albright had an IT specialist demonstrate how to use the new tech, and Judge Albright discussed how his courtroom procedures were going to work for the next few months, while the COVID-19 pandemic remains a consideration. Since his last patent jury trial in October, MV3 v. Roku, Judge Albright’s courtroom has been receiving a much-needed technology facelift. For those who follow our blog or attended the MV3 v. Roku trial, MV3 had a technology

There’s now some more clarity on next steps in the VLSI v. Intel case. Intel and VLSI filed their opposition and reply briefs (respectively) yesterday, December 29. The Court and parties convened for a Zoom hearing at 10AM Central this morning. The parties’ argument largely focused on the proper interpretation of the final paragraph of the Federal Circuit’s In re: Intel order (which we covered last week), and in particular, the issue of whether “‘unanticipated post-transfer events frustrated the original purpose for transfer’ of the case from Waco to Austin originally.” At risk of dramatically oversimplifying the issues in dispute, it seems fair to summarize