Uncategorized

Well, that was fast. VLSI-Intel III has been adjourned as of this morning on account of multiple (we think) jurors testing positive for COVID-19. The Court’s resultant message to the parties was along the lines of, “Somewhere down the road we’ll pick another jury.” Judge Albright’s formally promulgated trial procedures have not, as far as we can tell, provided for daily COVID testing since VLSI-Intel I. The COVID-safety-related formal trial procedures in place for VLSI-Intel III consist of (1) a statement that “[a]ll individuals who enter the Courthouse shall be expected to adhere to CDC guidelines for COVID-19”; and (2) a self-screening questionnaire that also […]

No rest for the weary! Fresh off the mid-trial COVID-related adjournment in VLSI-Intel III, Judge Albright’s court now pivots to its next trial, Appliance Computing III Inc. (d/b/a Surefield) v. Redfin Corp.  Voir dire will commence at 9AM this coming Monday morning, May 9, with openings scheduled for 1PM. The Court has allotted 14 hours per side, and it appears that four patents are at issue. We’ll see if that allows summations to occur Friday, or if closings have to roll over to the following week. Plaintiff Surefield is represented by Austin firm DiNovo Price and two Seattle firms, Corr Cronin and Lowe

Today’s post is courtesy of guest author Tim Dewberry. Today in the case Densys Ltd. v. 3Shape Trios A/S, a jury in Waco returned a verdict finding infringement by defendant 3Shape Trios of U.S. Patent No. 6,402,707 (the “’707 Patent”), which is directed to a “[m]ethod and system for real time intra-orally acquiring and registering three-dimensional measurements and images of intra-oral objects and features.” Plaintiff Densys alleged both direct and induced infringement of the ’707 Patent, with the jury ultimately agreeing and finding that 3Shape willfully infringed the asserted claims directly and indirectly. In a daring, but ultimately unsuccessful, gambit 3Shape opted

Yes, y’all read that correctly; the parties in VLSI v. Intel are back for round three. Unlike chapters 1 and 2, this episode will be going forward in the Austin Division courthouse. (You’ll recall that the location of the first VLSI-Intel trial was the subject of prior mandamus practice.) Openings are scheduled for 1PM this coming Monday, April 25. The Court has allotted 14 hours per side. Based on Judge Albright’s typical trial day, summations could occur Friday, though with the late start on Monday, it wouldn’t shock us if closings don’t occur till the following week. The Court has published dial-in credentials to observe the upcoming

Magistrate Judge Derek Gilliland took the bench this past week and has already jumped into the massive pool of patent cases in the Waco Division. Judge Gilliland was gracious enough to give me a few minutes to ask him a few questions on topics that are of interest to all litigators in the Western District of Texas. What follows is an interview I conducted with Judge Gilliland last week in which I attempt to shed some light on some of these topics. Judge Gilliland comes to the bench as a veteran trial lawyer, with over two decades of patent, trademark,

On March 7, 2022, the Court updated its Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.0 – Patent Cases. Here are the highlights: Venue and Jurisdictional Discovery  The Court updated the requirement of any venue or jurisdictional discovery to be completed from no later than three months[1] to no later than ten (10) weeks after the filing of an initial venue motion. Parties shall file a notice of venue or jurisdictional discovery if the discovery will delay a response to a motion to transfer.   Inter-District Transfers The Court updated the requirements for motions to transfer, which include Inter-District Transfers. A motion to transfer anywhere may be

Judge Albright’s busy 2022 trial calendar continues apace. Over the last two weeks the parties in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC tried their case, with the jury handing back its verdict on Thursday. The case would likely have concluded a couple days earlier, but Central Texas’s flash wintry mix occurrence wiped out Thursday and Friday of the first trial week. Another possible reason for the trial’s slightly greater-than-standard duration is that the Court conducted voir dire on the same morning as openings, rather than scheduling it the week prior, as is Judge Albright’s usual (though not exclusive) practice. Again the Court did not circulate public

Well, the Court has back-to-back trials, so y’all get a combination post. First, we’ll look ahead to this week’s trial in VideoShare v. Google, in which opening statements will occur tomorrow morning. This is a one-patent case, with the usual array of defenses at issue. Per the pretrial order, Google has asserted inequitable conduct. Judge Albright has in at least one prior case taken submissions on inequitable conduct on the papers following close of jury proceedings; what the Court and the parties have in mind this time remains to be seen. There’s also—unless it was resolved at the pretrial conference—still

Judge Albright’s Court is again hosting another patent trial starting today, relating to LED lighting technology. Plaintiffs are Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. and Obert, Inc.; Defendants are CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co., and Elliott Electric Supply Inc. Voir dire was held Friday. As before, remote audio-only observation will be enabled: +1 669 254 5252  or +1 646 828 7666  or +1 551 285 1373  or +1 669 216 1590  Webinar ID: 160 109 8861 Passcode: 155144 Mobile-friendly:  +16692545252,,1601098861#,,,,*155144# This is going to be a pretty short trial, it appears. The parties are each limited to 8 hours

And another Waco trial’s done! Profectus v. Google jury came back mid-morning yesterday. Counsel opened on Thursday afternoon, so that amounts to only 3.5 days of trial proper, which we believe makes this one of the two fastest patent trials before Judge Albright so far, along with CloudofChange v. NCR from back in May (which was, as we recall, Monday AM opening, Thursday PM verdict). This one was a defense verdict, and a complete one, too (i.e., Profectus’s asserted patent was found both non-infringed and invalid). It’s been quite some time, so we’re going to take the opportunity to update the Texas IP trial