VideoShare v. Google Preview & Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Wrapup

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 a pending standing challenge, based on ownership of the asserted patent.

The parties are limited to 10 hours per side to present evidence. Interestingly, about two weeks ago VideoShare lodged a formal objection with the Court that this amount of time would not be sufficient—but as far as we can tell, no related updates are reflected on the docket, so we assume the trial will most likely conclude this week.

The usual remote audio-only observation will be enabled, at this dial-in:

  • +1 669 254 5252 or +1 646 828 7666 or +1 551 285 1373 or +1 669 216 1590
    • Webinar ID: 160 089 1998
    • Passcode: 048835
  • Mobile-friendly:
    • +16692545252,,1600891998#,,,,*048835#

UPDATED: Dial-in info is now correct; apologies for the earlier error.

Plaintiff VideoShare is represented by Shore Chan and Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth. Defendant Google is represented by O’Melveny & Myers and Mann Tindel Thompson.

Second, the jury came back last Thursday in Jiaxing Super Lighting v. CH Lighting with a verdict more-or-less completely in favor of plaintiff Super Lighting. Specifically, in addition to the two patents already admitted to be infringed before trial even started, the jury (1) found infringement of the third asserted patent; (2) concluded that none of the three asserted patents were invalid; (3) assessed $14M in damages (~$13.8M to supplier CH lighting and ~$300K to customer Elliott Electric Supply); and (4) found that CH Lighting’s (but not Elliott’s) was willful. We’ll watch the space to see if the Court elects to enhance damages based on willful infringement.

Here’s an updated trial tracker to account for the Super Lighting verdict; we’ll update again ASAP after we find out what happens in the Videoshare case.


(See Excel Sheet)