Below are a few (13) of the cases that have been tried in Texas with a brief summary for each. This information was pulled from a 90+ page summary (see link at bottom) from which I tried to just focus on cases with judgments. This doesn’t calculate judgments as a % or revenue, rather just a quick summary of some of the cases that have been tried in Texas.

Figured I needed something to do since I am waiting for the refrigerator repair man. You know it works, they give you a 4 hour window, and if you are lucky, they show up! Ironically, my refrigerator is covered under a class action lawsuit (-:.

GLTA

Finisar v. DirecTV

The jury awarded $78,920,250.25 in damages. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.65 billion in damages, which is 3 percent of DirecTV`s gross sales.

TiVo v. Echostar

Jury awarded TiVo $79 million validating its claim that it was the first to market a low-cost, easy-to-use digital video recorder (DVR). Court to rule on treble damages and infringement as early as June 26, 2006.

Avid v. Datamars

The jury awarded $6 million in damages for false advertising and unfair competition.

The jury awarded $26,981 in damages for the patent infringement.

Visto v. SEVEN

Plaintiff asked the jury in opening statements for $8 million in lost profits & reasonable royalties - the jury awarded a little under half that.

Z4 technologies v. Microsoft et al.

Jury awarded plaintiff $133 million in damages. Damages were $115 million against Microsoft and $15 million against Autodesk.

KAMATANI v. BENQ INC

Judge Ward issued a monetary sanction in the amount of $500,000 for the willful disregard of this Court`s Discovery Orders.`` He wrote: ``This sanction is both a deterrent and a punishment for BenQ”.

ALT v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

Holding: Defendant`s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment DENIED

Defendant Medtronic sought summary judgment, claiming that it had a license for the patents in suit. Judge Davis held that the letter in question did not constitute a license, and that Medtronic was not a third party beneficiary of a prior settlement agreement.

Acco Brands v. ABA Locks

The case resulted in a plaintiff`s verdict on infringement and invalidity with respect to both patents, and a jury award of approximately $4 million. However, Judge Ward subsequently granted the defendants` motions for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity with respect to one of the patents. This called into question the amount of damages found by the jury which had determined neither patent to be invalid. After briefing, Judge Ward determined that the existence of a potentially non-infringing alternative required a new trial on damages. The case was retried on damages on December 15, resulting in a damages finding of $2,075,000.00.

Paice v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al.

The jury found that (1) the defendant did not literally infringe any of the eight claims of the three patents; (2) did infringe two of the nine claims under the doctrine of equivalents, (3) the infringement was not willful, (4) none of the patents were invalid by anticipation or obviousness, and (4) damages were approximately $4.2 million (plaintiff argued for about $34 million).

L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Amazon.com Inc. paid $40 million (euro32 million) to Soverain to settle a patent-infringement lawsuit that was pending in the Eastern District of Texas.

National Instruments Corp. v. Mathworks, Inc

After a ten day jury trial, the jury found that the plaintiff infringed three patents, but not a fourth, rejected the defendant`s invalidity claims, and awarded $3.5 million in royalties.

Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, L.L.C.

Judge Steger modified the damages from a reasonable royalty to lost profits (increasing it from $100,000 to $408,456), and extended the judgment to cover an additional product as to one of the defendants, which added another $8,370 in damages.

Microtune (Texas), L.P. v. Broadcom Corp.

Court awards $5.65 Million in Fees and Expenses Against Losing Defendant in Patent Case. In this order, Judge Brown determined that prevailing plaintiff Microtune should be awarded its reasonable attorneys` fees in the amount of $5,157,658.25 (a reduction of approximately $500,000 from the amount requested) and litigation- related expenses in the amount of $500,168.31. Interestingly, the Court noted that the defendant in the case incurred legal expenses of over $11 million. Judge Brown`s opinion is an exhaustive application of the standards for awards of attorneys` fees, and may be useful for practitioners researching these issues.

http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/all_patent_cases/index.html