WacoWatch

On August 4, 2022, Judge Albright granted stay pending resolution of the inter partes review in the case of Sonrai Memory Limited v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. This action alleges that Western Digital Technologies, Inc. infringed three patents belonging to Sonrai Memory Limited.

As of July 25, 2022, any patent case filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas will be randomly assigned to one of 12 judges in the Western District, including Judge Albright. This order changes prior practice in which patent cases filed in the Waco Division would be assigned to Judge Albright as a matter of course.

On October 15, 2020, plaintiff ACQIS sued six Lenovo entities for infringement of nine patents related to data transmission systems. On November 16, 2021, Judge Albright granted the motions to dismiss for improper service filed by three Lenovo entities.

On May 16, 2022, Judge Albright denied Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Inc’s and Samsung Electronics America, Inc’s (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) Motion to Transfer Venue from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California.

On May 20, 2022, in Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., Judge Albright granted Zebra’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack of Standing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, and granted Zebra’s Motion to Dismiss, dismissing all claims without prejudice.

On March 2, 2021, the jury trial in VLSI Technology, LLC v. Intel Corporation concluded and found that Intel had literally infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,523,373 (’373 patent) and that infringed under the doctrine of equivalents U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (’759 patent)s. The jury awarded VLSI a lump sum of $1.5 billion for the infringement of the ’373 patent and a lump sum of $675 million for the infringement of the ’759 patent.

On April 12, 2022, in Ikorongo Technology LLC, et al. v. Bumble Trading LLC, Judge Albright granted Bumble’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 251, which contains the original patent requirement.

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.

On March 30, 2022, Judge Albright reconsidered Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) motion to sever and stay in Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Google LLC.

On March 25, 2022, Judge Albright granted Defendant Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzhen) Technology, Ltd.’s (“Meraki”) opposed motion for reconsideration and severed Defendant Meraki and granted its transfer motion to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”).

Plaintiffs Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and Chengdu Monolithic Power Systems Co., Ltd. (together, “MPS”) filed this action against Defendant Meraki, alleging patent infringement (“Patent Claims”) along with claims of trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, and unfair competition (“Non-Patent Claims”). Also, MPS filed a lawsuit in the NDCA against Defendant Meraki’s founders in their individual capacities.

On June 25, 2021, IngenioShare, LLC (“IngenioShare”) sued Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) for direct and indirect patent infringement in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). Epic argued that the venue was improper. On March 18, 2022, in a nine-page Order, Judge Albright expressed his agreement and dismissed the case.

On March 9, 2022, several months after accessiBe Ltd. (“accessiBe”) was denied transfer in AudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd., Judge Albright reversed his decision on reconsideration. The case will proceed in the Western District of New York (“WDNY”).

Judge Albright issued multiple standing orders on March 7, 2022, changing various procedural requirements for litigating patent cases in his court.

On March 1, 2022, Judge Albright denied Defendant Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”), “alleging that it is more convenient than this District.” Plaintiff BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo”) did not contest that this action could have been brought in the NDCA.

On March 1, 2022, Judge Albright granted Defendant eClinicalWorks, LLC’s (“eClinical”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Massachusetts. eClinical did not argue that the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (“WDTX”) was an improper venue, but rather that the District of Massachusetts “is simply a more convenient forum.”

On May 28, 2021, Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”) sued Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) in the Waco Division, alleging infringements of seven patents. Broadcom and Monterey, however, are both headquartered and have their principal places of business in the Northern District of California. Therefore, on November 29, 2021, and before substantive proceedings occurred, Broadcom moved to transfer venue to N.D. Cal. Judge Albright denied the motion—less than a month after briefing concluded. In denying transferring the case, Judge Albright considered the 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) transfer factors, focusing on the following six factors contested by the parties.

On January 7, 2022, Judge Albright entered a preliminary injunction against foreign Defendants Big Hippo LLC and EifBrissa in Qin v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule “A.” They are now enjoined from manufacturing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, or selling unauthorized and unlicensed automotive seat covers that infringe Plaintiff’s patented design.

On December 29, 2021, Judge Albright granted Lenovo USA and Motorola’s motion to dismiss for improper venue in Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Lenovo Group. It remains to be seen whether Gesture Technology Partners (“Gesture”) will appeal or refile in another jurisdiction.

On December 17, 2021, Judge Albright imposed sanctions on the plaintiff’s counsel who signed the motion for a new trial filed after a jury verdict for the defense in Freshhub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The third quarter of 2021 was one of the busier quarters for Judge Albright on transfer orders.  For 3Q 2021, we reviewed the judge’s transfer-related orders and procedures.