Insights
Publications

Insights Into the First Patent Trial in Waco, Texas - MV3 Partners v. Roku

October 22, 2020 Articles

A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners had sought over $41 million in damages against Roku, claiming infringement of one patent based on media streaming technology that included screen casting and screen mirroring.

In just over two years on the bench, Judge Albright has given talks all around the country—physically in pre-COVID times, and by video this year—making clear that he welcomes patent cases in the Waco Division of WD Texas. He also issued local patent rules upon taking the bench. Indeed, Judge Albright spoke at an event in Maryland titled, “Why You Should File Your Next Patent Case Across the Street from the ‘Hey Sugar’” (a reference to a candy store near the Waco courthouse). His pro-Waco campaign has been successful: there are currently 545 patent cases pending in the Waco division under Judge Albright, a remarkable volume in any court.

Quick Takeaways

The defense verdict will lead some companies and attorneys to reconsider some of their underlying assumptions about how a Waco jury would respond to a patent case. The verdict shows that this Western District of Texas jury pool will give careful consideration to both sides of the case.

This verdict may also lead some defendants to eschew motions to transfer venues (which Judge Albright generally denies) and the costs associated with the expansive venue discovery that Judge Albright permits.

Nonetheless, given the extremely swift schedule Judge Albright sets in his cases, with trial only 18 months after the initial case management conference, and a disinclination to grant stays pending IPRs before the PTAB, Waco is likely to remain an attractive venue for plaintiffs.

Insights on Judge Albright’s Courtroom

During the MV3 Partners v. Roku case, before bringing the jury into the courtroom, Judge Albright expressed his approval of this particular trial and the trial-by-jury system generally, describing his role as “sit and referee and let the jury decide” and calling it the “greatest system on earth.”

Avoiding sidebars, he heard evidentiary objections during this trial in front of the jury, and his rulings resulted more often in inclusion than exclusion. For example, Judge Albright overruled the defendants’ objection seeking to preclude plaintiff’s damages expert from presenting certain opinions and evidence that allegedly reflected the application of the entire market value rule. 

Conversely, the court also overruled plaintiff’s objection seeking to preclude defendant’s damages expert from presenting evidence regarding licenses that defendant’s technical expert had not provided a comparability analysis for. The court permitted defendants to present the license as being “related to” the features at issue in the case. 

Judge Albright has also reportedly said that one of his top frustrations is attorneys who will not answer his direct questions. During trial, he did not hesitate to intervene to tell expert witnesses to answer yes or no to questions on cross-examination and reminded everyone that the directing attorney will have an opportunity to conduct a re-direct exam. This bend towards efficiency may also be a result of the only 14 hours each side had for evidence over 5 days, including a rebuttal case for plaintiffs. Such efficiency will require both sides to distill their cases into key arguments and force their witnesses to provide concise and non-rambling answers, which will ultimately allow for a cleaner presentation to the jury. 

Judge Albright also demonstrated his trial lawyer experience in this trial by closely reviewing the evidence that was presented and denying the introduction of impeachment evidence if proper foundation was not laid.

In his first patent trial, it was clear Judge Albright took his role as “referee” seriously and presided over an efficient proceeding focused on sending the jury to deliberate with clear evidence and testimony in hand. 

Patent practitioners around the country will be watching for the next patent trial in Waco, which is currently scheduled for November 16, 2020 in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation (1:19-cv-977) according to the docket in that case, though that may be delayed. The next patent trial currently listed on Judge Albright’s court calendar is set for January 11, 2021 in Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. HEB Grocery Company, LP.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Tips For Banks As USAA Check Deposit Patent Dispute Grows

In January 2020, we wrote a  Law360 guest article  that highlighted some of the risks that followed Wells Fargo Bank NA's strategy in its patent dispute with the United Services Automobile Association over remote deposit check imaging technology. Nearly...

Read More
Publication

Data Center Business Deals Gone Bad, and the Risks of the “Known in the Industry” Defense

Exploring business partnerships often involves or even requires sharing highly confidential and even trade secret information. The data center industry is no exception, and its participants have in recent years faced litigation focused around...

Read More
News

Benchmark Litigation 2021 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms in California

SAN FRANCISCO, October 12, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms in California in the  Benchmark Litigation  2021 guide. Farella was ranked “Highly Recommended” for Dispute Resolution...

Read More
News

3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial

Eugene Mar spoke to Law360 about the  MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc.  case in the article, " 3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial." In the article, Eugene said he's...

Read More
Publication

IP Law up for Best Supporting Role in the COVID-19 Relief Spending Bill and Other New Legislation

The new, more than 5,000-page spending bill (formally known as The Consolidated Appropriations Act), which includes the latest COVID-19 relief, had a few surprises under its cover. Two of those surprises focus directly on...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Elevates Five to Partner

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More
News

Farella Braun Files Amicus Brief in Support of Humanitarian Organizations in Ninth Circuit Appeal of WhatsApp v. NSO

SAN FRANCISCO, December 23, 2020: Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel today submitted an amicus brief in support of civil society organizations in the NSO Group v. WhatsApp appeal pending before the...

Read More
Publication

The CCPA and Nonprofits_ Privacy and IP Hot Topics

Sushila Chanana and Nate Garhart discuss "The CCPA and Nonprofits: Privacy and IP Hot Topics." The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) went into effect on January 1, 2020, and while the CCPA does not expressly...

Read More
Publication

Cannabis IP: Using Intellectual Property to Protect Your Assets and Grow Your Business

Nate Garhart and Ashley Roybal-Reid discuss "Cannabis IP: Using Intellectual Property to Protect Your Assets and Grow Your Business." Intellectual property (IP) is a critical issue in the cannabis industry. Creating and protecting cannabis products...

Read More