63 episodes

Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Executive Director Wayne Stacy, along with BCLT's Life Sciences Project Director Allison Schmitt, facilitate interviews with leading Law and Tech experts to discuss the intricacies of their career paths and how they got to where they are.

BCLT's Expert Series Berkeley Center for Law & Technology

    • Education
    • 4.0 • 4 Ratings

Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Executive Director Wayne Stacy, along with BCLT's Life Sciences Project Director Allison Schmitt, facilitate interviews with leading Law and Tech experts to discuss the intricacies of their career paths and how they got to where they are.

    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 4

    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 4

    Speakers:
    Michael Smith and Wayne Stacy
     
    Description:
    Judge Albright continues to provide detailed guidance on the often maddening day-to-day tasks of patent litigation. This guidance can both streamline a case and reduce the costs of litigation—but only if attorneys follow it. For example, we get detailed guidance on the court's approach to court costs, discovery of unnamed products, protective order changes, and counting interrogatories. We even get an interesting case on establishing venue by pointing to employees working at home. And maybe the most illustrative cases this time come from a pair of cases discussing motions to stay—one from Waco and one from Austin. Is a motion for preliminary injunction going to be a prerequisite going forward?

    • 56 min
    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 5

    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 5

    Speakers:
    Michael Smith and Wayne Stacy
    Once again, Michael Smith highlights some key learning points from the Texas courts, including:


    Same plaintiff, different judges, different outcomes--What lessons can we learn from the Sonrai cases and the different decisions in Waco and Austin?  
    A delicate balancing act between asking the otherside to create new documents and asking the other side to explain their financial documents.  Can we really find a rule of reasonableness?
    LinkedIn abuse--A sharp rebuke about venue gamesmanship and the misuse of LinkedIn profiles.
    A textbook case for striking portions of an expert opinion.
    Judge Gilstrap explains his views on discovery of negotiation agreements and litigation funding documents.
    Past or present--what are the venue impacts of a closed facility?

    • 42 min
    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 24

    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 24

    The Eastern District provides us with a side-by-side comparison of motions for amending contentions. Together, these decisions illustrate the important facts for both sides. Judge Gilstrap also provides us with a wonderful example of what it takes to win a 12(c) motion and strike down a patent under 101. Compare this outcome to Judge Albright's "uphill scrabble" to win a Rule 12 motion on 101. Finally, Judge Albright gives updated guidance on alternative service and about modifying his model protective orders.

    • 50 min
    Matthew Meyer & Jake Chabon | Where law and business guidance meet — the world of startups

    Matthew Meyer & Jake Chabon | Where law and business guidance meet — the world of startups

    For innovation companies, their success is often tied to the skill with which they handle the legal and regulatory issues in their industry. Law and business strategy go hand in hand. And this lesson is especially important for emerging companies… and junior lawyers. Today, we hear directly from a successful emerging company about the need for and value of combined legal and business advice.  
     
    Matthew Meyer, Wilson Sonsini
    Jake Chabon, Foresight Diagnostics 
    Interviewed by Wayne Stacy

    • 22 min
    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 23

    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 23

    Two JMOLs give us a good lesson on strategy and picking your battles. And Judge Gilstrap gives us great guidance on exceptional-case motions.
     
    Transcript: 
    Wayne Stacy  00:00
    Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Last Week in Texas podcast, it is March 30. And we're here again with Michael Smith. No Baylor basketball jokes this week, Michael. So we think that that would be good. Well, thanks. Thanks for coming back after my unnecessary shots last week. Well, Michael, I'd love to start this week with a case I think that people would look at and kind of kind of laugh a little bit. But there's a lot more to it. And there was a jury award and Marshall, that might be the lowest Jury Award in Texas and a patent case, a whopping $84,000, which is roughly one trial day for a patent team. So what what's, what can we look at this case and learn? Well,
     
    Michael Smith  00:52
    it was an interesting case, I happened to be in the courtroom while the jury was deliberating and sending out notes. And I looked over at the plaintiffs table, and there were at least 10 lawyers there. So I don't know what was going on there. Other than this, it's a competitor case. And when it's a competitor case, you don't it's not necessarily about the money damages at the trial. It's it's it's about being able to cut the defendant off from continuing to sell a product that you think is infringing your patents. So, again, I am not focusing on the amount that the jury awarded, I'm focusing on what was being sought by the plaintiff. In that case, competitor cases are getting to be the standard. I've had four patent trials in the last year and Marshall would judge Gilstrap, all four were competitor cases, all four were a larger competitor in a field suing a smaller competitor in a field for patent infringement. And you had similar themes in all of the cases. So we're seeing a lot of that. Coincidentally, the plaintiff's lawyer in that case was my co counsel on the defense side in February, so I need to call him back and find out what happened on that case. One fun thing that happened while we were sitting there waiting to start our hearing is that the jury sent out a note saying, please send back the exhibit with the defendant sales in such and such time period so that we can calculate damages. I tried not to look at the defense table, then because I know how I feel when when a note comes like that. And you're on the defense side.
     
    Wayne Stacy  02:28
    Yeah, there's there's no, no positive message in that note. Oh, no. Well, well, Michael, I think that it's an interesting point. The stereotype of the Eastern District in the Western District of Texas, is that the only thing that's happening there are in PE cases, and if you use a little harsher language, you know, like some folks do, that it's just those are the two trial courts of the United States patent cases. You're suggesting otherwise?
     
    Michael Smith  02:57
    Well, the cases that go to trial? Yes, we had a similar case to this that went to trial a few months ago in Waco, where again, the amount that the jury awarded was bizarrely low. But when you go back and you find out what they were fighting over, it was a competitor case. I mean, going back to 1994, the first patent trial I

    • 38 min
    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 22

    Last Week in Texas with Michael Smith | Episode 22

    Satisfying fee awards remain elusive, but attorneys keep asking. Insanity or persistence? Apparently hoping to guide lawyers in their future filings, Judge Albright continues issuing detailed rulings on discovery disputes. This week's important ruling focuses on discovery for related products. And finally, two severance motions with different outcomes. Together, these rulings demonstrate the contours of a successful severance motion.
    Transcript:
    Wayne Stacy 0:08 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and technologies last week in Texas podcast. It's March 23. And we are here again with Michael Smith. Michael, thanks for joining us.
    Michael Smith 0:20 Well, thank you for having me, Wayne.
    Wayne Stacy 0:22 Well, it's good to have you back. You seem to have had a day job for the last couple of weeks that required your attention in court. So thanks for making a little bit of time for us. And with that, tell us tell us what you've been learning in court the last couple of weeks.
    Michael Smith 0:37 Uh, well, it has been an interesting couple of weeks, we had another patent trial in judge Gill Strap's court and Marshall, a couple of weeks ago, and I have been busy with that. And it's it's actually the fourth patent trial I've had with Judge Gill Strap in the last 12 months. And what I really learned is that you never stop learning, you never stop finding out new things to object to new ways to make the other side have to do something. It was, as I said, a patent infringement case. The jury came back. According to what we were able to find out, the jury actually deliberated for about 35 minutes after lunch, and came back finding none of the claims infringed and all of the challenge claims invalid. The plaintiff asked for 63 million. So the jury came back with a complete defense verdict in that case, but as I said, it was a fun case, not least because the water went out in Marshall on Friday afternoon before trial. So I had my house set up and some of the members of the trial team coming out to take showers, and otherwise get ready. But that's that's kind of your job when your local council if they need water if they need power if they need heat. But it was a very interesting trial, we had a lot. We learned about how the court wants things done and more efficient ways to put things on
    Wayne Stacy 2:01 anything in particular?
    Michael Smith 2:03 Well, impeachment with a prior deposition is something as I said, a few weeks ago, Judge Albright said for the love of God, if you're going to be in a courtroom, know how to impeach with a prior deposition. Well, what I learned in this trial is, you may think you know how to do it, because that's how you've always seen it done. And what we found out is if somebody stands up in objects, the judge may have an opinion about the way that everybody's used to doing it is the right way of doing it or not. Well, we've always paid close attention to how judge Gill strap wants this done. But what we learned when objections were made is that He requires that the witness's memory be refreshed with a copy of the deposition before you put it up in front of the jury. Well, that wasn't the way most people do it. So you had to ask the question, get the answer, then say Do you remember having your deposition taken? And then give them the page of the deposition? Which actually works out fine, because in patent cases, we hand up giant notebooks for all the witnesses anyway. If you tell the jury, or I mean, you tell the witness to flip to page 35. Look here, you see, I asked you this question. Yes. And your answer was this, wasn't it? And only if they deny it, can you then put it on the overhead and show it to the jury? Now, if no one objects, that's what people do all the time. But what we learned in this trial is that that is an objec

    • 42 min

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5
4 Ratings

4 Ratings

Top Podcasts In Education

Mel Robbins
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
Duolingo
Jordan Harbinger
TED
Duolingo