[On the heels of a $500 million jury verdict against a tech giant in Illinois, a patent-infringement plaintiff suffered a big loss in the Eastern District of Texas this week.
Eolas Technologies Inc. was built on a patent related to web browsing ... On Feb. 9, after just a few hours of deliberation, a Tyler federal jury invalidated Eolas patents that formed the basis of Eolas' infringement suit.
Initially, Eolas had filed the suit against 23 companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and J.C. Penney Corp. But by the time of the trial started this week, the roster of defendants had dwindled to nine, with the other 14 originally named companies settling with Eolas, according to Jennifer Doan (pictured), a partner in Texarkana's Haltom & Doan who represents Yahoo and Amazon, two of the remaining defendants.
In October 2009, Eolas filed the complaint in Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Tyler. All defendants had denied the allegations.
Before the Tyler jury looked at the disputed patents, Eolas' rights in them had been tested and validated three times in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office re-examinations. Robert Hirschhorn, an attorney, jury consultant and president of Cathy E. Bennett & Associates in Lewisville, advised the defense team at the Tyler trial this week. Hirschhorn applauds the fast work of the jury panel, which was composed of six women and two men.
"They decided fast because we were right," Hirschhorn says.
In pretrial decisions, Doan says, U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis had ordered the defendants to separate into three groups. Doan says the plaintiffs agreed to have jurors first decide whether a disputed patent was valid before jurors in subsequent trials would consider Eolas' infringement claim. Those trials now will not be scheduled.
Mike McKool of Dallas' McKool Smith, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, did not return a call seeking comment.]
So, here we go again Shorty. AND WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PARKER CASE? Do you notice that Longs don't post a notice about some case the McKool won? Why? Because it's not THIS case. We don't stoop to implication. Why? We don't need to. Our Parker case is so strong, we don't spend time doing what you're doing.
There are two things that are relevant: (1) McKool Smith is a top legal firm, (2) They have really powerful aspects of the Parker case that help them prosecute THIS case to their advantage.
C'mon Fud. You've been admonished about bringing up cases and trying to imply they mean something about Parker's case. Go to the corner now for an hour. Bad boy.
Before the Tyler jury looked at the disputed patents, Eolas' rights in them had been tested and validated three times in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office re-examinations.
Here is Cawley's comment after he managed to lose from what many observers would have considered a strong position -
"We're disappointed, but we respect the jury's decision. We will evaluate our options."
It's worth noting that during the ParkerVision case Cawley allowed himself to be outmanoeuvred when agreeing that the lead inventor's explanation of ParkerVision's invention during the Tutorial hearing be made under oath.
It must have profoundly impressed the judge when Cawley's team subsequently proposed a definition of "non-negligible amounts of energy" during the Markman hearing which, for reasons which should be all too obvious, was a complete contradiction of the lead inventor's use of that term during his earlier sworn testimony.