In an April 28, 2014 article in Texas Lawyer Who're Your Calling Plaintiff Friendly Jeff Saltman of Fisch Sigler LLP and I analyzed the 2013 patent verdicts in the Eastern District of Texas and found that Eastern District juries rendered verdicts in favor of accused infringers in 10 out of 14 cases, and split evenly at one for each side in the two invalidity – only trials. I thought the readers might be interested in some of the post – trial activity in those two invalidity trials.
In Oasis Research v. Carbonite, et al., 4:10cv435, following a six-day jury trial before Judge Amos Mazzant in Sherman, the jury returned a verdict invalidating the patents for failing to disclose a co-inventor named Jack Byrd. On January 8, 2015, Judge Mazzant issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law and held that the four asserted patents were not invalid for omitting Byrd.
Meanwhile, in Alexsam v. The Gap, 2:13cv0004, a Marshall jury found that the defendants had not shown that the asserted claims were invalid. (As I have posted on recently, subsequent juries found that the claims were not infringed by either of the defendants that went to trial, but the invalidity verdict was appealed anyway). Earlier this week the Federal Circuit invalidated that finding, holding that because the plaintiff was unable to show a conception date prior to the effective filing date of the patents in suit, the jury lacked substantial evidence to find that the alleged prior art system did not anticipate the patents in suit.
So no change – still one finding that the patents were not invalid, and one finding that they were. (Readers can insert their emoji of choice here: _____).
A Marshall jury rendered a verdict yesterday in Magistrate Judge Roy Payne's court in DataQuill Limited v. ZTE USA, Inc., 2:13cv633. The jury found the plaintiff had shown that all of the five asserted claims were infringed, and that none of the asserted claims were shown by clear and convincing evidence to be invalid. It set damages through March 2015 at $31,500,000. For comparison purposes, Plaintiff was seking $46.9 million, and defendant argued that even if the patent was valid and infringed, damages were between $1.92 and $2.35 million.
Just did my first Periscope video post #edtexweblog - Recent Case Transfers about recent activity sending cases to visiting judges. Didn't see any of you live during it, but it's available on my Twitter feed here, it appears -
I'll say this - it takes way less time than writing a post! Steve Dotto has an interesting post on how Periscope works, and it got me intrigued.
I wanted to recognize that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently signed SB 534 into law. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kirk Watson and Rep. John Smithee, and supported by numerous bar organizations, including Tex-ABOTA, TADC, TTLA and the State Bar of Texas adds to the oath that is required of each person admitted to practice law in Texas, specifically that the person will “conduct oneself with integrity and civility in dealing and communicating with the court and all parties.”
The legislation is part of a national push to include similar language in lawyer oaths, and follows 13 other states, which have enacted similar legislation, reflecting a recognition of the important role that civility plays is allowing our justice system to function effectively and efficiently.
No, existing lawyers are not grandfathered. As Texas lawyers know, the Texas Lawyers Creed enacted in 1989 already covered this ground, and in my experience civility is the norm in the courts I have practiced in, and rare (okay one) has been the judge that tolerates anything less. But this legislation places appropriate emphasis on the subject. Congratulations to all for all the work that went into getting the legislation passed.
Glad to be in Santa Fe for a couple of days for Texas-ABOTA (American Board of Trial Advocates) annual seminar and meeting.
The CLE is put together annually by Austin lawyer Dicky Grigg, who is appreciated by many Texas lawyers for his service to the profession (see right for his service at Texas Tech Law School)
and who annually puts together the most entertaining and informative CLE I have ever had the pleasure of attending.
This morning we heard back to back presentations on cartel trials by the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, on the intersection of religious protests and law, and human trafficking. We are reloading after the morning break for presentations by David Berg on his book on his brother's murder, Joel Collins on the Magna Carta, and Michael Morton, talking about his experience. Not bad for half a day. Can't wait for tomorrow.
As readers know, personal productivity is an interest of mine. The cornerstone of any personal productivity system, I believe, is the system used to keep track of tasks.
Whether you use a system like David Allen's Getting Things Done or something similar, you still need a way to keep track of all your tasks and obligations so that what needs to get done gets done.
Until recently, I was using a simple program called Remember the Milk (RTM) albeit somewhat grumpily because I found both the name and the cow logo silly. The program also seemed to not work well at tracking projects (multiple tasks) and, frankly, let's be honest, it wasn't very colorful.
So for several months I tried out other programs that were compatible with Google Calendar and Evernote, and settled on Nozbe. But after several months with it, I realized I was spending a lot of time working my way through the menus to get to where I needed to enter a task, or modify it or mark it done or defer it, and one day it finally occurred to me that I was spending more time managing the program than I was working in it. Well, that was defeating the purpose, so I went back to RTM, and have been very happy with it since then.
The principal deficiency I had previously was that it wasn't tracking projects, but I addressed that by using the "tags" function to identify projects. Once I did that - and ensured that every task had at least one tag - I could conduct the weekly reviews that David Allen recommends. And the desktop version still is not very good, but I don't use it much. But the best part is the interface - my list of tasks comes up quickly and I can tweak it very, very easily. It is still very blue - no question about that - but I can live with it.
Again, task management is highly idiosyncratic, so your mileage will no doubt vary. But this is what is working for me. Again.
I am working with a planning committee for an upcoming civil litigation seminar and we are interested in the topic of using what's referred to as "Big Data" in litigation.
Now this sort of data analysis in general is nothing new - I studied statistics in graduate school to understand when it could be a useful tool to predict the utility of a certain proposed or existing public policy initiative - and just as important to know when a purported "statistical analysis" was pure horsesh%t, and should be called out as such (which is way more fun, by the way).
What we are interested in is educating our attendees on the use of so-called "big data" in litigation. I know that some of the general counsels that I work with mine data to determine whether a matter should be handled in-house or outsourced, and some of the law firms mine data to value their cases and predict how a judge might rule on various motions. Some law schools are even offering “Attorney Analytics” as a class in law schools.
Can anyone recommend a speaker who could discuss this topic in broad terms. Yes, I know there are people that do it specific to IP litigation, and can tell you with a straight face the effect that Judge Davis' morning cup of coffee had on motions for sanctions (grant rate drops by 38.5 percent, with a croos tab for effect of weather and day of the week), but I'm looking for something broader.