Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Shrinking verdict - new trial changes damages from $52 million to $8.5

By Michael C. Smith

ADVERTISEMENTS

I posted last week that Judge Ward picked three juries the Friday before. One of those cases settled, another, Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson resulted in a $482 million verdict, and today the third, LaserDynamics v. Asus Computer International, 2:06cv348, which was a retrial limited to damages, wrapped up after a quick two day trial. But it requires a little back story.

In June of 2009 the jury in LaserDynamics found for tha plaintiff in Judge Ward's court in Marshall. Specifically, it found that the defendant contributed or induced infringement of one claim of the patent, that such infringement was willful, and that the defendant had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the patent was invalid as not enabled. Damages were set at $52 million - final judgment was for $57.4 million. Judge Ward later ruled on the inequitable conduct claims, which were presented to him in a bench trial on August 10, 2009, and concluded that inequitable conduct (here claimed to be failure to disclose by a nonlawyer inventor) was not shown in this case.

On June 11 of last year Judge Ward granted the defendant's motion for new trial or for remittitur, holding that the jury's award of $52 million was against the great weight of the evidence because there was insufficient support for the application of the ?entire market value? rule, and remitted the damage award to $6.2 million, which he held was the largest amount properly supported by the evidence. LaserDynamics had ten days from the entry of that order to notify the Court of its election in writing, and apparently it elected a new trial because that trial occurred yesterday and today.

On retrial, the jury determined that a lump-sum royalty would have been negotiated, and set the amount at $8.5 million.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on February 01, 2011 (boomark / email).