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: _____).