Jason Barnes To Teach Trial Presentation

Jason Barnes, Ted Brooks and Robb Helt

I will be joining Robb Helt and Ted Brooks to teach a 2-day seminar in trial presentation on February 18 and 19, 2016 in Dallas, Texas. We will cover 16 topics:

  1. Disaster Prevention and Recovery
  2. Graphic Design for Trial
  3. Data Management
  4. Database Development and Management
  5. Trial Presentation – The Hotseat
  6. Business Development
  7. Business Ethics
  8. Marketing and Promotion
  9. Qualities of Successful Trial Presentation Consultants (Panel Discussion?)
  10. Cool Tools for Litigation
  11. Live Demonstrations
  12. PowerPoint in Trial
  13. Local Rules and Practices
  14. Principles of Information Design
  15. Setting up a switching and distribution system that works
  16. Telling a story with timelines

Lessons will be geared for novice and experienced trial techs, alike. Participation will be limited to 30 attendees with a fee of $650 per person, so reserve your spot now. Please, message me if you are interested and I will send you more details.

Newegg Does Not Infringe the ’730 Patent After All

Look at that S car go.

Wait for it…

In the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a ruling over turning the jury’s verdict in the TQP v Newegg case that came before him in November 2013. In that case the jury found that Newegg did infringe the asserted patent ( U.S. Patent No. 5,412,730) and that the patent was valid. It was a disappointing loss after a long, bumpy road for Newegg. Though TQP had already collected over $45 Million in settlements from other companies, Newegg’s policy is not to settle with companies it deems to be patent trolls. Although the jury awarded TQP less than half of what they asked for, the jury still awarded them $2.3 Million in damages.

Then came a nearly two year gap (due to a clerical error) between the jury’s verdict and the Judge’s ruling on Newegg’s post-trial motion for summary judgement, which prevented Newegg from appealing the verdict. But in a surprising turn, Judge Gilstrap granted Newegg’s motion, reversing the jury’s decision on infringement. From the decision:

The Court finds no substantial evidence that this action of the RC4 cipher is directly coupled to (or directly depends on) when, if, or the manner in which enciphered blocks are transmitted or received. In other words, regardless of whether the claim is viewed from the perspective of the transmitter or the receiver, the Court finds no substantial evidence that “a new key value . . . is used each time a predetermined number of blocks have been sent from the transmitter over the communication link.”

Overturning a jury’s verdict and granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law requires a strong belief that reasonable jurors could not reach a different conclusion. That is a bold position, and should be noted by defendants who might be reluctant to go to trial East Texas. Though we strongly believe that East Texas juries are fair to all parties, on the rare occasion when they may miss key evidence (or miss that key evidence is missing)  East Texas judges will step in and correct the error. 

photo credit: PWK_20120524-1040611_DMC-LX5 via photopin (license)

Tranxition Patents Found To Be Invalid

Lenovo
Judge Marco Hernandez in the District of Oregon has ruled that Tranxition’s U.S. Patents 6,728,877 and 7,346,766 are invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act. In the case Transition v. Lenovo, the defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgement under Section 101, and the court found that the claims were ineligible for a patent because they present an abstract idea without sufficient inventiveness.

Innovation Act of 2015 – Venue

Welcome to Marshall Texas
Welcome to Marshall Texas

The Eastern District of Texas may fade back into obscurity if the House Judiciary Committee passes the current language on venue. As of June 15, 2015, the language reads as follows:

(b) VENUE FOR ACTION RELATING TO PATENTS.—

Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c) of section 1391 of this title, any civil action for patent infringement or any action for a declaratory judgment that a patent is invalid or not infringed may be brought only in a judicial district—

(1) where the defendant has its principal place of business or is incorporated;

(2) where the defendant has committed an act of infringement of a patent in suit and has a regular and established physical facility that gives rise to the act of infringement;

(3) where the defendant has agreed or consented to be sued in the instant action;

(4) where an inventor named on the patent in suit conducted research or development that led to the application for the patent in suit;

(5) where a party has a regular and established physical facility that such party controls and operates, not primarily for the purpose of creating venue, and has—
(A) engaged in management of significant research and development of an invention claimed in a patent in suit prior to the effective filing date of the patent;

(B) manufactured a tangible product that is alleged to embodyan invention claimed in a patent in suit; or

(C) implemented manufacturing process for a tangible good in which the process is alleged to embody an invention claimed in a patent in suit; or

(6) for foreign defendants that do not meet the requirements of paragraphs (1) or (2), according to section 1391(d) of this title.