Patent Litigation Lawyer

In TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79919 (D. Tex. 2007), Judge Ron Clark set aside the largest verdict in Eastern District history, finding plaintiff’s evidence at trial did not support the jury’s funding of infringement. Judge Clark succinctly provided the basis for his ruling with “TGIP had the burden to prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. As discussed above, there was no evidence that the Datawave system itself met all of the limitations of any claim. Likewise, the limited evidence that AT&T developed the Datawave cards for a customer shows only that AT&T could, if it wanted to, develop a variable-amount card. That is no evidence that the accused system or method infringed.” Id. at *27.

While Judge Clark’s ruling is a painful one for trial lawyers practicing on the plaintiff’s side, his ruling is consistent with his overall approach to trying cases and being a judge. Judge Clark is candid with trial lawyers about how the evidence presented at trial must support the verdict, or the verdict will not stand. In this case, it appears TGIP presented expert testimony that was in conflict with its literal infringement theory, and did not offer any evidence on infringement through the doctrine of equivalents.

This ruling might help disabuse some people of a popular myth regarding the Eastern District of Texas, which is that it is somehow a plaintiff’s forum that is unfair to defendants. The truth is the advantages of the Eastern District are: (i) getting to trial within 18 months, and the Courts not granting many continuances; (ii) broad discovery rules that don’t allow the parties to play games and hide the ball; and (iii) sophisticated Judges with a great deal of experience in trying patent cases. More than anything, the Eastern District is more efficient, less expensive, and provides a level playing field. Sadly, it has become a rarity in combining those factors.

Armi Easterby