Another Knock-Out!


Marshall, Texas has a reputation as a tough place for defendants accused of patent infringement. But the Barnes & Roberts team is helping to change this reputation – one fight at a time. On Friday, September 23rd, a Marshall jury returned a knock-out victory of non-infringement for handset seller, HTC America. Additionally, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that the claims asserted by Mobile Telecommunications Technologies (MTel) were invalid.

Congratulations for the victory belong to our clients Jerry Selinger, Susan Powley and Trampas Kurth, of the patent powerhouse Patterson + Sheridan in Dallas.

Genband Wins $8.2 Million Patent Verdict Against Metaswitch

Genband Patents

An East Texas jury found that Metaswitch infringed seven of Genband’s patents related to VoIP, and awarded Genband $8.2 Million in damages. The court had previously ruled that the patents met the Section 101 requirements for patentability as defined in the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Tracy and Stephanie represented Barnes & Roberts on the trial team in Marshall, and are proud of the work the team from Baker Botts did to win such a positive result.

  • Jury Hands Genband $8.2M Patent Win Against Metaswitch (Law 360)
  • Jury Finds Metaswitch Infringes 7 GENBAND Voice-Over-IP Patents (Bloomberg)
  • Texas Magistrate Says Firewall IP Should Survive Alice (Law 360)

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.