The end of Joe Mullin’s Corporate Counsel article on the DataTreasury vs. U.S. Bancorp patent infringement verdict has a roundup of useful links to earlier coverage of the case and documents filed with the court.
The bloody-shirt jury argument
As seems to be customary in such cases, the patent owner’s lawyer both waved the American flag and invoked the sanctifying powers of the Patent and Trademark Office; perhaps less customarily, he arguably waved the bloody shirt, while maligning Egypt and India in the process:
While defense lawyers emphasized during the trial that DataTreasury’s experts were paid—including a computer scientist who acknowledged that serving as a DataTreasury expert was his full-time job—Roach reminded the jury that “not everybody” who found value in Ballard’s patents was on the company’s payroll.
“Four qualified, experienced, unbiased experts have decided whether or not the Ballard patent is new and novel,” Roach said during his summation. “They are the patent examiners….They are paid by the United States of America. They are paid by the United States of America to help protect and make America strong by protecting American inventors and protecting American invention.”
“Remember what Dr. [Jerry] Hausman, the defendants’ expert, told you would happen if we disregarded intellectual property rights?” Roach continued. “That we’d end up like India and Egypt where people don’t invent things. [sic] Instead, they go around talking about ways they hate America and waysthey want to fly airplanes into our buildings. [sic]”
A partial defense win on damages
The defense team achieved a significant partial victory, though: The damages award — $27 million, which might be tripled because of the jury’s finding of willful infringement — was less than 15% of what the patent owner had sought, although it was four times what the defense had claimed was a reasonable number.
Clearly the defense was teeing up an appeal on Lucent v. Gateway grounds that the evidence did not support treating the patented invention as being worth that much money. (See this Morgan Lewis memo for more details on the Lucent case.)