- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
US District Court Rejects $847m 5G Patent Infringement Jury Verdict Against Verizon
US District Court Rejects $847m 5G Patent Infringement Jury Verdict Against Verizon
Grants re-trial, setting 06 December as the date of hearing
Telecommunications giant Verizon has convinced the US District Court, Eastern District of Texas to grant a retrial after a jury in June ordered it to pay a patent holding company $847 million for patent infringement.
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a retrial concluding that the jury's verdict was "against the great weight of the evidence to such a material degree that a new trial is necessary."
The jury had decided that Verizon infringed two patents owned by the patent holding company General Access Solutions (GAS) and relating to wireless access devices in 5G technology.
Though Gilstrap stated having “great respect for a jury's verdict", he added that the issues raised by Verizon warranted a new trial on the case, including issues of infringement, invalidity and damage.
Verizon had stressed not infringing any asserted claims and that all those were invalid and lacked written description and enablement.
Dallas-based GAS had filed a lawsuit against Verizon in 2022 for infringing two patents that cover key inventions of the 5G technology – ‘beamforming’ and ‘hot spotting’. While beamforming makes 5G connections more focused toward a receiving device, hot spotting is where people can access wireless internet with a mobile device.
The May 2024 court rulings during the pre-trial conference and the original June 2024 jury trial would apply to the new trial, including the pre-admission of all trial exhibits.
Verizon was represented by a Gibson Dunn & Crutcher team led by Partner Josh Krevitt.
Bartlit Beck led by Glen Eric Summers appeared for General Access Solutions.