WacoWatch

On May 19, 2023, a Waco jury found that Dropbox did not infringe any of the patent claims asserted by Motion Offense, LLC.

On May 20, 2024, Judge Albright issued an order granting Micron Technology, Inc.’s (Micron) request to amend its invalidity contentions “to include U.S. Patent No. 7,397,713; U.S. Patent No. 7,174,440; and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0110343 as secondary references . . . to address [Sonrai Memory Limited’s (Sonrai)] new infringement theory” in Sonrai Memory Ltd. & Nera Innovations Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., 1:23-cv-01407-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2024).

On July 18, 2022, Ice Rover, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Brumate, Inc. (Defendant) in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. Defendant filed a 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 “in the interest of justice” to Colorado because it is a “district or division in which it could have been brought.”

On June 13, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a 35-page final written decision following inter partes review (IPR) between Patent Quality Assurance LLC (PQA), Intel Corp. (together, the petitioners), and VLSI Technology LLC (the patent owner).

In Sinox Co. v. YiFeng Manufacturing Co. and Shenzhen Yuandaoyuan Indus. Co., Sinox Co. (Sinox) sought the court’s permission to effect alternative service via email under Rule 4(f)(3). Judge Albright granted-in-part-as-modified and denied-in-part Sinox’s motion for leave to effect alternative service on defendants. He allowed electronic service upon Shenzhen Yuandaoyuan Indus. Co. (SYIC), but not YiFeng Manufacturing Co. (YiFeng), with the difference arising from each defendant’s online presence, or lack thereof.

For Day 5, the defense rested its case-in-chief.