Tech
your username
3 hours ago
Apple Inc. will be able to retry the issue of damages in a patent infringement trial it defended against Optis Wireless Technology LLC and four affiliated companies. According to the Eastern District of Texas opinion delivered Wednesday, the jury returned the verdict after finding that Apple willfully infringed on five of Optis’s patents, but did so without the benefit of evidence explaining that the verdict must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) in accordance with the contractual terms surrounding the asserted standard essential patents (SEPs).
Judge Rodney Gilstrap reported the case’s history, starting with Optis’ complaint in February 2019. When it came time for trial, the court bifurcated the issues into two trials, first before a jury then before the court at Optis’ request, to which Apple acquiesced. The parties tried issues of infringement and damages to the jury and Optis’ declaratory judgment claim to the bench.
Jury Verdict: Apple Owes $308.5M for Patent Infringement lawstreetmedia.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from lawstreetmedia.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
January 31, 2021
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc on businesses across the country, several companies have thrived during the pandemic in areas such as the gig economy, work from home and e-commerce, entertainment, and social media. Litigation has also increased, in some cases linked to newfound success. The following is a representative sample of strong-performing companies that have experienced increased federal litigation during the pandemic in each of the aforementioned categories, built using Docket Alarm analytics.
Gig Economy
The “gig economy,” according to Investopedia, “is based on flexible, temporary, or freelance jobs, often involving connecting with clients or customers through an online platform.” Examples include Uber and Uber Eats, Lyft, DoorDash, GrubHub, and Postmates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these companies have faced COVID-19 related litigation, such as cases over driver misclassification and employment benefits. These companies ha
Also, I guess Judge Gilstrap is simply going to convert his TRO into a preliminary injunction (PI). The TRO decision was just unbelievable. Besides the three key main issues I already criticized a few days ago, it s also telling that he set a bond of zero dollars, denying Samsung was harmed in the slightest, and the following sentence was astonishing: The Court finds a substantial risk of
irreparable harm to Ericsson, and
to the jurisdiction of this Court, if Samsung were to attempt to enforce or further pursue its antisuit injunction against Ericsson.
He couldn t have made his partiality any clearer. He viewed Samsung s Chinese antisuit injunction as an attack on the Eastern District of Texas. However, there is no basis in U.S. law for extending the concept of irreparable harm to a judicial district. If anything, the court s own interests in the integrity of the cases before it are part of the public interest analysis. I just find it so awkward even in the Eastern District