Judge Albright is currently delivering preliminary instructions to the jury in ESW-Roku; you can dial-in to listen to proceedings as we detailed here last week.
In the meantime, here’s our link roundup of last week’s doings in the Waco Division:
- We noted in our prior link roundup that the trial in the True Chemical v. Performance Chemical case, which had been scheduled to occur last week, was canceled at the last minute following the Court’s hearing on PCC’s sanctions motion.
- Michael A. Tomasulo and Kevin J. Boyle of Winston & Strawn’s WacoWatch blog have the story: Trial Cancelled. Sanctions Looming.
- And so does Dani Kass of Law360: Oil Co.’s Sanctions Bid Derails WDTX Patent Case On Trial Eve (subscription required)
- Mr. Tomasulo on the WacoWatch blog also follows up, along with Dr. Alan Cox, on Dr. Cox’s prior analysis of the VLSI-Intel damages methodology for Patently-O (we linked to it a couple weeks back) with a detailed look at Hedonic Regression — The Theory Behind the $2.2B Verdict in the VLSI Technologies v. Intel Case
- We also hurtle towards next Monday’s scheduled April 12 opening in VLSI v. Intel II. Dani Kass of Law360 covers the Court’s order formally re-transferring the second of VLSI’s three cases from Austin back to Waco: 2nd VLSI-Intel Patent Trial Heads To Waco After $2B Verdict (no subscription required, given COVID-related content)
- Of additional note on the case docket, last Monday Intel filed its own venue-related motion. Intel’s motion asks the District Court to (1) transfer the case back to Austin; (2) in the alternative, continue the Waco trial given recent media coverage (though focusing primarily on the Waco Herald-Tribune, not this blog); or (3) at a minimum (and regardless of the timing and location of trial), allow questioning during voir dire regarding the jury pool’s awareness of the $2.1B verdict in VLSI-Intel I. VLSI has not yet filed its opposition as of this writing, but we’ll be very interested to see what the Court makes of this motion this week.
- The Court last Wednesday granted a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(3), holding that Koss Corp.’s patent infringement suit against rival headphone maker Skullcandy Inc. could not proceed in the WDTX, on the ground that Skullcandy did not maintain a regular and established place of business in the District, as required under 28 USC § 1400(b) and TC Heartland.
- Matthew Bultman of Bloomberg Law has coverage: Patent Suit Over Skullcandy Headphones Booted From West Texas (subscription required)
- As does Hailey Konnath of Law360: Skullcandy Beats Infringement Claims Over Wireless Tech (subscription required)
- A few months back we covered the Federal Circuit’s mandamus order directing that the Court revisit its transfer analysis in the Cameron Int’l Corp. v. Nitro Fluids L.L.C. litigation—in which Nitro had requested a move to SDTX in light of a co-pending patent litigation there—based on a correct interpretation of the first-filed rule. Since then the District Court hadn’t further acted on the transfer motion, and Nitro filed a second mandamus petition on March 11. On March 25 the District Court ordered the transfer, noting that overlapping declaratory judgment invalidity causes of action had been added to the SDTX since the Court’s initial order denying transfer. On March 29 the Federal Circuit then denied the second mandamus petition as moot. Dani Kass of Law360 has coverage: Albright Dodges Fed. Circ. By Shipping IP Case To Houston (subscription required)
- A couple weeks ago we briefly covered the Ancora-Samsung case, which was scheduled to go to trial April 19. It’s now apparently settled; Lauren Berg of Law360 has coverage: Samsung Inks Deal On Eve Of Cellphone Tech Patent Trial (subscription required)
- Hannah Albarazi of Law360 has continuing coverage of TracFone’s second transfer-related mandamus bid before the Fed. Cir.: Patent Owner Slams TracFone’s Latest Bid To Flee WDTX (subscription required)
- Thanks to Scott Graham of Law.com for including this blog’s Texas IP Trial Tracker in his “Skilled in the Art” writeup: New Resources for Tracking Patent Cases (subscription required)
- Ronald Lemieux and Steven Auvil of Squire Patton Boggs are the latest to weigh in on the recent rise to prominence of the Waco Division as a patent-litigation venue: Move Over Marshall, There’s a New Sheriff in Town—The Rise of Waco and the Western District of Texas
For this week’s non-Waco-related reading materials:
- SCOTUS’s long-awaited ruling in Google v. Oracle is out! Takes are proliferating as we speak; you can get started with Nathan Ingraham’s at Engadget: Supreme Court rules in Google’s favor in Oracle copyright case
- Anytime a longstanding patent doctrine stands at risk of being overruled, it’s news. As assignor estoppel heads towards its April 21 day of reckoning before SCOTUS, April Abele Isaacson and Kimberlynn B. Davis of Kilpatrick Townsend take a deep dive into the briefing in Minerva v. Hologic: Petitioner And Amicus Briefs Lay Out Arguments In Supreme Court Fight Over Assignor Estoppel
- As we mentioned in last week’s roundup, non-fungible tokens are a hot topic! For a good explainer, check out this writeup from Becki C. Lee of Arnall Golden Gregory: Can’t Touch This: Using Blockchain to Protect Your Intellectual Property
- We know we tend to link to coverage of standard-essential patents here a lot, but people keep writing good articles. Here Erik R. Puknys and Michelle (Yongyuan) Rice of Finnegan look at the worldwide quasi-competition among jurisdictions to become the preferred court: Where Will Be the Most Favorable FRAND Forum?
- On Patently-O, Prof. Dennis Crouch goes through the numbers to show we’re entering a world in which the majority of issued patents will be so-called “post-AIA” patents: The AIA Patents have Arrived
We’ll catch you later this week with continuing coverage of ESW-Roku, VLSI-Intel II, and other Waco-related developments.