In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a defendant cannot be held liable for willful infringement where appellate review of the invalidity decisions is still ongoing.
On September 9, 2017, an Eastern District of Texas magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation holding that a plaintiff was estopped from asserting its patent infringement claims because statements made in response to an inter partes review (IPR) petition constituted a disclaimer.
In a report and recommendation issued Tuesday, August 15, 2017, a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas stated that failure to provide a patent examiner with a copy of a relevant post-grant review (PGR) institution decision does not make a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
On August 3, 2017, Judge Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to exclude the testimony of defendants’ expert regarding patentability for parroting arguments from defendants’ motion for summary judgement.
The Supreme Court’s recent holding in TC Heartland settled several points of law: first, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the “sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions; second, the broader venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) are not applicable to patent infringement cases; and third, TC Heartland reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision that reaffirmed VE Holding and held that “the current version of § 1391 does not contain any indication that Congress intended to alter the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted in Fourco.” In the aftermath of TC Heartland, there have been inconsistent approaches to the question of waiver and whether the recent Supreme Court decision constitutes new law. Two such decisions are detailed, below.
On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part.
On February 13, 2017, Judge Roy Payne issued a report and recommendation to grant DeVilbiss Healthcare, LLC’s (“DeVilbiss”) motion to dismiss My Health, Inc.’s (“My Health”) complaint, holding that the asserted patent failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On November 1, 2016, The Honorable Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas added $456,000 in enhanced damages after a jury found that LG willfully infringed two patents owned by Core Wireless LLC. The jury had awarded Core Wireless $2,280,000 in actual damages.