Author name: Western District

Today, the Federal Circuit granted Intel Corporation’s writ of mandamus which vacated Judge Albright’s November 20, 2020 order re-transferring Intel’s case against VLSI back to the Waco Division. We previously covered Judge Albright’s November 20, 2020 Order, but for those who didn’t have time to review my previous post, here is a quick recap: Judge Albright relied exclusively on two bases to retransfer the trial back to Waco. First, Judge Albright relied on authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(b). Second, he relied on his inherent authority for docket management. According to the Federal Circuit, neither authority gives Judge Albright […]

Where does Judge Albright go from here, following today’s Federal Circuit mandamus ruling in In re: Intel Corp.? (Mark covered the meat of today’s Federal Circuit order in this post, and covered the District Court’s original transfer ruling exactly one month ago.)  Spoiler alert: Plaintiff VLSI has already filed an “Emergency Motion to Transfer Back to Waco” that would return the entire case (i.e., not just the trial) from the Austin Division back to the Waco Division. In doing so, VLSI is following the roadmap set forth in the final paragraph of the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which reads in full: In these circumstances,

Apparently all the legal community wants for Christmas is…more articles regarding Judge Albright? There’s been a mini-blitz of coverage since our last link roundup, so we’ve gathered them together for your holiday-break reading. Hope you enjoy! Scott Graham of Law.com covers the Federal Circuit’s Intel mandamus ruling (which we covered here and here): Federal Circuit Again Rules Against Judge Albright on Convenience Transfer (subscription required) And Cara Salvatore of Law360 covers the Intel ruling here: Fed. Circ. Faults Albright for Moving Intel Trial to Waco (no subscription required, based on COVID-related content) Judge Albright made some remarks last week at a seminar co-hosted by Magna Legal Services at Winston & Strawn

It’s a busy holiday week, so we’ll give you a quick tip: Last week, Judge Albright held a hearing on Dell Inc.’s challenge to Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC’s preliminary infringement contentions. Dell challenged Plaintiff’s infringement contentions as failing to provide the notice necessary for Dell to understand Plaintiff’s infringement theories. I won’t get into the merits (as I am counsel on the case) – but I did want to point out a very interesting statement Judge Albright made during the hearing. Specifically, Judge Albright expressed his views concerning how infringement and invalidity contentions fit into the Markman process. Spoiler alert

The last couple weeks have continued to generate coverage of Judge Albright and the Waco Division. Here are the highlights: First, here’s some coverage of Judge Albright’s and Federal Circuit Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll’s remarks from the Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute, from Dani Kass of Law360: Judges Stoll, Albright Dish On Litigating During COVID-19 (no subscription required, based on COVID-related content) And some tips on trial practice from Judge Albright via Perry Cooper of Bloomberg Law: Focus Complex Patent Trials to Sway Juries, Judge Albright Says (subscription required) Scott Graham of Texas Lawyer examines the odds of any patent case going to

For this week’s post, I wanted to cover a few noteworthy updates coming from Judge Albright’s Court.  Jury Trial Will Take Place Despite COVID: Yesterday Judge Albright held a hearing in True Chemical Solutions, LLC v. Performance Chemical Company, at the close of which Judge Albright stated the case would proceed to trial in Waco in January – despite the case being originally filed in Midland-Odessa. The Court noted that the COVD-19 pandemic infection rates were very high in west Texas, but the cases in Waco remain reasonably under control. Especially if VLSI v. Intel also proceeds to a January trial in Waco,

Legal media generated a good handful of interesting Waco-related stories pertaining to the VLSI-Intel case over the past couple weeks: Last week on the blog Mark covered Judge Albright’s conditional “reverse”-transfer of the VLSI-Intel case back from Austin to Waco for trial. Intel has since petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus relief from that order; Matthew Bultman of Bloomberg Law covers it: Intel Urges Federal Circuit to Stop Patent Trial Move To Waco Focusing in large part on Judge Albright’s VLSI-Intel order, Michael S. Nadel of McDermott Will & Emery, writing in the National Law Review, posits Waco to be the New Trial Hot Spot Meanwhile, Law360 covers Intel’s

During May, when most of the country was reeling from the spread of COVID-19, Judge Albright issued a very thorough opinion concerning res judicata, or claim preclusion. Because the opinion provides great insight into Judge Albright’s patent philosophy as it concerns the scope of a patented invention, I thought the order was worth discussing now. The case is Videoshare, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6-19-cv-00663-ADA. In a prior case litigated in the District of Delaware, a district court found that Videoshare’s patents asserted against Google were invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Several years later, Videoshare filed the aforementioned case in

Last Friday Judge Albright issued an order effectively “reverse”-transferring VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation’s trial from Austin to Waco, if the Austin Courthouse does not reopen in time for a January trial. Before we get into the Court’s analysis, some quick background information: VLSI sued Intel in three different cases for allegedly infringing eight patents. Judge Albright granted Intel’s Motion to Transfer to Austin because, “at the time, the Court determined that the Austin division was clearly more convenient than the Waco division.” VLSI originally filed three cases against Intel (6:19-cv-00254, 6:19-cv-00255, and 6:19-cv-00256). These cases were consolidated and transferred to Austin.

The default rule in patent cases pending before the Waco Division is that fact discovery is stayed until the Markman hearing is over; that hearing in turn typically follows service of a responsive answer or Rule 12 motion by approximately seven months. Specifically, the Court’s operative Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) provides: Except with regard to venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related discovery, all other discovery is stayed until after the Markman hearing. Notwithstanding this general stay of discovery, the Court will permit limited discovery by agreement of the parties, or upon request, where exceptional circumstances warrant. What does this look like in practice? First and foremost, the