Defense verdict in Marshall patent case

Last Friday, the jury in the Sensormatic v. WG Security Products, Inc., et al. case pending in Judge Ward's court in Marshall rendered a verdict for the defendant.  I have not seen the verdict yet, but it is my understanding that the jury found no infringement on any of the asserted claims of the three patents in suit, but that the defendants had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the patents were invalid.  The parties put on 14 live witnesses and 4 video-only witnesses in the space of four days plus one hour on Friday morning, which is about par for the length of a patent trial in Judge Ward's court. This is the 21st patent verdict in the district in recent years that I am aware of, and the first defense verdict by a jury.  This is the case in which Judge Ward denied a motion to compel the inventor's testimony as a non-testifying expert about six weeks ago.  See http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2006/06/motion_to_compe.html

Comments

[Jack Alexander]

Who were attorneys representing the respective parties, Sensormatic and W G Security Products?

[Maureen Veterano]

In response to the question about the attorneys involved, the defendant was represented by Bob Waters of Louisville Kentucky, and his product was insured by Intellectual Property Insurance Services.

[Maureen Veterano]

Co-Counsel for the defendants was Sim Israeloff of Cowles & Thompson in Dallas. The firm has posted a short summary of the verdict on their website. (http://www.cowlesthompson.com/gtl/index.cfm#54)