Uncategorized

Friday afternoon 8/28 the jury in NCS Multistage v. TCO returned its verdict. For the second time (after January’s infringement verdict), NCS prevailed, with the jury finding that TCO had both induced infringement of and contributorily infringed the asserted ’445 patent with respect to all accused products. The jury also found that the ’445 patent was not invalid. As to damages, the jury’s award was $1,928,400. For reasons known only to the jury, that figure is almost exactly 4/7 between the parties’ respective damages positions ($3.15M for plaintiff NCS, $300K for defendant TCO). [This post was drafted with intent to post on the day […]

The Labor Day weekend seemed a good opportunity to catch up on the first six weeks in the “new world” of patent cases in the Western District of Texas, in the wake of Judge Garcia’s July 25 Order Assigning the Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases. Obviously it’s still early days, but there’s (barely) enough data available to start forming some preliminary conclusions. The back half of this post contains a tabulation of all patent cases filed in all WDTX Divisions since July 25, along with detailed annotations below. In the interest of readability we’ll present conclusions

Another week, another trial in front of Judge Albright. The parties are opening as we speak in NCS Multistage Inc. v. TCO AS, Case No. 6:20-cv-00622-ADA. Readers may recall that plaintiff NCS has already tried one case in front of Judge Albright: In January of this year NCS obtained a jury verdict of approximately $486K in its trial against defendant Nine Energy Services, based on the same one ’445 patent now asserted against TCO in case. The prior proceedings took just four days; perhaps we will see the same again—the Court has allotted 10 hours per side. Plaintiff NCS is represented by

This post below is courtesy of guest contributor Chris Hardee, AVP of Technology for Lumenci Inc., a technology consulting firm that provides services in the field of patent litigation. Neither WDTX Patent Blog nor any person or entity affiliated with it has received compensation from Lumenci in exchange for running this post. *            *            * On April 20, Judge Albright issued rulings resolving two discovery disputes in Vervain, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-487. The issues raised in both disputes frequently occur in patent cases, and practitioners would do well to consider their future implications. Source Code Printout Dispute: In the

This post is courtesy of guest author Tim Dewberry. Yesterday Magistrate Judge Gilliland conducted a pre-voir dire conference for the parties in VLSI v. Intel III, slated to start next week in Austin. At the conference Judge Gilliland provided his expectations for the voir dire proceedings, which will occur this coming Monday morning before trial starts in the afternoon. Attorney Questioning: Judge Gilliland noted that he would have the entire jury panel watch the Federal Judicial Center’s introduction to patents video prior to any questioning done by the attorneys, and that attorney questioning would be limited to 15 minutes per side. The questioning could proceed by each lawyer

UPDATED 8/12/22: We understand that the case settled before Friday morning summations, and so there will be no jury verdict. Notwithstanding the recent big changes in the Western District, trials before Judge Albright continue apace. This week brings us SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. [i.e., IBM], Case No. 6:20-cv-01033-ADA. Openings started at 9AM this morning. This could be another short-ish trial: Judge Manske conducted voir dire this past Thursday; it’s a two-patent case; and the Court has allotted 10 hours per side. Plaintiff SunStone is represented by Dickinson Wright, plus Austin practitioner Kevin Kudlac. IBM is represented by Quinn Emanuel and

Updated July 25: No trial this week, after all. On Saturday the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal disclosing they “have resolved all matters in controversy between them.” * * * Next trial up on Judge Albright’s docket is Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 6:20-CV-00665). Voir dire will start at 9AM this coming Monday, July 25, with opening statements to follow. Each side will have 10 hours for trial presentation, plus 30 minutes for each of opening and closing arguments. The Court’s notice of trial procedures includes public dial-in credentials for this case as follows: +1 669 254 5252  or +1 646

Earlier today the Caddo v. Microchip jury came back with its verdict, finding that the asserted patent claims were infringed by Microchip’s accused website(s); that Microchip was not licensed to the asserted patents; and that Caddo was entitled to $235K in lump-sum damages. (Microchip did not try an invalidity defense.) Close of evidence occurred Thursday afternoon, followed by the jury charge, with summations this morning followed by the jury’s verdict around 3PM this afternoon. * * * The corresponding update to our Texas IP trial tracker follows below: (See Excel Sheet)

Another month, another Waco patent trial. On Monday starting at 9AM we’ll hear opening statements in Caddo Systems, Inc. v. Microchip Technology Inc. (Case No. WA:20-CV-00245, if you’re keeping track). Judge Manske conducted voir dire this past Thursday, June 2. The Court has allotted 12 hours per side—which, combined with the prior-week voir dire, might allow this trial to conclude within one week, jury deliberations allowing. (Recent trials have run about 50/50 between single-week and ~6-7-day affairs.) Plaintiff Caddo is represented by the Devlin Law Firm out of Delaware. Defendant Microchip is represented by national counsel Orrick, plus local Texas counsel Darryl Adams and Brian

Yesterday afternoon, after deliberating for about two hours, the jury in Surefield v. Redfin came back with a verdict in favor of the defense on all fronts: i.e., Plaintiff Surefield’s four asserted patents were not infringed, and all four were invalid. Trial ultimately took about 6.5 court days, though some of that time was devoted to bench trial issues, with the jury not present. * * * Here’s the latest update to our Texas IP trial tracker, now accounting for this case, a couple recent EDTX verdicts, and some post-trial activity relating to earlier-issued verdicts: (See Excel Sheet)