WacoWatch
Sort by:
197 results
February 21, 2024
|1 min read
The license defense Intel is using involves a contract Intel entered into with Finjan in 2012. Under that contract, Intel purchased from Finjan a license to patents owned and controlled by Finjan and its affiliates, including affiliates it might acquire later.
January 31, 2024
|1 min read
Judge Albright Issues a New Order Governing Proceedings
Judge Albright issued a new Order Governing Proceedings on January 23, 2024.
December 6, 2023
|4 min read
Federal Circuit Reverses VLSI $2.2B Judgment With Rulings on Damages and DOE
VLSI Technology, LLC sued Intel Corporation in the Western District of Texas for infringement of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,523,373 (’373) and 7,725,759 (’759). A jury trial in February and March 2021 found infringement of both patents and awarded separate lump-sum damages for each patent—$1.5 billion for the ’373 patent and $675 million for the ’759 patent.
December 6, 2023
|4 min read
On November 6, 2023, Judge Albright denied Defendants Amazon Services LLC and eero LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue and to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.
November 1, 2023
|2 min read
On October 19, 2023, the Federal Circuit denied Sony’s petition to transfer a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California.
October 4, 2023
|8 min read
Rafqa Star, LLC v. Google, Inc., 6:22-cv-01207-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2023) is a case brought by Plaintiff Rafqa Star, LLC (Rafqa) alleging that Defendant Google LLC’s (Google) Navigate with Live View feature of Google Maps, along with “associated hardware and/or software” that “work in conjunction with” the Navigate with Live View feature of Google Maps, infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,145,215 (’215 Patent).
September 27, 2023
|2 min read
Judge Albright Orders Plaintiff to Produce Documents Related to Defendants’ Marking Defense
On September 19, 2023, Judge Albright issued a discovery dispute order ordering Plaintiff Viasat Inc. (Viasat) to produce “documents and information sufficient to identify which of its products were sold or offered for sale in the United States that incorporate flash memory, and the dates that Viasat sold or offered for sale such products, and identify the flash memory product incorporated in each of such products.”
September 13, 2023
|2 min read
On July 18, 2022, Ice Rover, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Brumate, Inc. (Defendant) in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. Defendant filed a 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 “in the interest of justice” to Colorado because it is a “district or division in which it could have been brought.”
August 30, 2023
|less than 1 min read
Waco Jury Finds No Infringement by U.S. Well Services and Invalidates Two Halliburton Patents
On August 24, 2023, a jury in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division with Judge Albright presiding, found for defendant U.S. Well Services, LLC. The verdict found U.S. Well Services’ Clean Fleet electric hydraulic fracturing fleets did not infringe three asserted patents.
July 26, 2023
|1 min read
It is common practice for parties in patent litigation to bring joint motions to stay to finalize terms of settlement when they have reached settlement in principle.
July 12, 2023
|3 min read
On May 26, 2023, Judge Albright granted Defendant Adobe Inc.’s (Adobe) motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California (NDCA).
July 5, 2023
|3 min read
On February 2, 2022, Zentian filed a complaint against Apple alleging infringement of four patents directed to improving the performance and efficiency of speech recognition on-device systems, including in the areas of parallel processing and circuit configurations.
June 28, 2023
|2 min read
On June 13, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a 35-page final written decision following inter partes review (IPR) between Patent Quality Assurance LLC (PQA), Intel Corp. (together, the petitioners), and VLSI Technology LLC (the patent owner).
June 21, 2023
|1 min read
Judge Pitman Finds Claims Not Abstract in Denial of 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
On June 7, 2023, in Competitive Access Sys., Inc. v. Oracle Corp., Judge Pitman denied Defendants Oracle Corporation and Oracle America Inc.’s (collectively, Oracle) Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Competitive Access Systems, Inc. (CAS) sued Oracle, alleging infringement of three patents related to network communications.
June 7, 2023
|3 min read
On May 17, 2023, Judge Albright granted Defendant Apple Inc.’s (Apple) motion for an intra-district transfer of venue to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. Plaintiff SpaceTime 3D, Inc. (SpaceTime) had alleged that Apple infringed several patents relating to various systems and methods for switching between applications on a mobile device.
May 2, 2023
|1 min read
Waco Jury Finds Willful Infringement and Awards Plaintiff Textron $279 Million in Drone Patent Suit
On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff Textron Innovations, Inc. (“Textron”) sued SZ DJI Technology, DJI Europe B.V., and DJI Technology, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,014,909; 8,108,085; 8,078,395; 9,162,752; and 10,243,647, which relate to drone technology.
May 1, 2023
|2 min read
On April 20, 2023, Judge Albright denied Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Impinj, Inc.’s Opposed Motion to Stay Pending ex parte reexamination addressing all asserted claims of the ’608 and ’596 Patents (“Stay Motion”).
April 28, 2023
|1 min read
Judge Albright is issuing in many of his patent cases a sua sponte order on motions in limine that are very similar to the standing order the Judge Gilstrap issued in December 2022. Just as Judge Gilstrap did, Judge Albright is imposing a set of standard limine rulings to be applied to all parties and is only allowing each party to propose and argue up to five (5) of their own motions in limine at the pretrial conference.
April 26, 2023
|1 min read
On April 12, 2023, Judge Albright issued an omnibus pretrial-conference order holding, among other things, that LG was estopped from arguing its priority-date issue in district court due to a stipulation in a corresponding IPR proceeding.