TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 2007 WL 3194125(E.D.Tex. Oct 29, 2007) (NO. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-105)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Defendant's Motions for Judgment As A Matter of Law GRANTED in part
Big decision today in the TGIP v. AT&T case - at least if you consider setting aside a $156 million verdict big. (It was the largest patent verdict in the ED - well, not any more).
As readers will recall, the jury in this case found literal infringement of patent #1, and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for patents 1 and 2, and that all infringement was willful. On the defense side,
it declined to find any of the claims obvious by clear and convincing
evidence, and declined to find (although these findings were advisory only) that TGIP had delayed filing suit for an
unreasonable length of time from the time it reasonably should have
known of its claim, and that such delay had prejudiced AT&T. On damages, the jury found
that damages were $156,289.609.
As I noted when the verdict first came out, this case is a little different in that the pre-verdict
motion for judgment as a matter of law was still pending post-verdict - it wasn't
denied during trial - so the issues raised by that motion were ripe immediately. Today Judge Clark's order resolving the five motions for judgment as a matter of law came out, and here's what it said:
First, AT&T’s three arguments for JMOL on the issue of noninfringement are summarized as follows:
a. First, AT&T argued that the claims teach that the call authorization amount of a card or account is not linked to a security number until the card or account is activated, whereas the call authorization amount in the accused system and method (hereinafter referred to as “the AT&T System”) is linked with the security number before activation;
b. Second, AT&T argued that TGIP failed to prove infringement of the ‘114 patent because AT&T uses two different numbers for activation of cards and for making calls, while the claims specify a single number; and
c. Finally, AT&T argued that TGIP’s claims rest on a theory of joint infringement that cannot be sustained from the record.
AT&T further asserted that it is entitled to JMOL on the issue of willful infringement,
and on the grounds of invalidity, laches and equitable estoppel.
Judge Clark granted AT&T’s motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the first ground set forth above, on the ground that the card authorization amount in the AT&T System is linked before activation. Although it was essentially moot given that he found no infringement, Judge Clark also granted the motion for JMOL on the ground of willfulness for the alternative reason (citing Seagate) that TGIP did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that AT&T knew, or should have known, that it acted in the face of an objectively high risk of infringement of a valid patent.
All other motions for JMOL (two numbers and joint infringement, invalidity, and laches & equitable estoppel) were denied.
Not that anybody cares, but this means I have to recalculate the win rate at trial stats I posted Friday yet again. Here's what I calculate it does (and it really affects the stats when you move a win into the loss column, of course):
Overall win rate since 1999 drops from 70% to 67%; Jury win rate drops from 73% to 69%. The 2007 win rate drops from 42% to 28% (now 2 out of seven), and the win rate for 2006 and 2007 combined drops from 57% to 50%. Again, the best national win rate at trial number I've been able to come up with is 59.2%, so the Eastern District is currently running at half that, and has been under the national win rate for two years now. Its overall jury verdict win rate over the past eight years - even with a string of 18 straight wins from 2001 to mid-2006 - is only two percent above the national average of 67%.
Again, I have to point out that in my considered opinion the judges and the juries haven't changed - just the cases and the lawyers. But it sure should give pause to people who are claiming that local judges don't look closely at the issues in these cases.
