Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2018)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:16-cv-00230, Dkt. No. 306
Decided
September 7, 2018
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC, §

§ §

Plaintiff,

§ §

v.

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00230-JRG §

NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC.,

§

TEKTRONIX COMMUNICATIONS,

§

TEKTRONIX TEXAS, LLC,

§

§ Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW

This case was tried to a jury between October 10, 2017, and October 13, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 239–42). The jury returned a verdict on October 13, 2017, finding willful infringement of the asserted claims, finding none of the asserted claims invalid, and awarding damages in the amount of $5.75 million. (Dkt. No. 237). Following submission of the evidence to the jury, on October 13, 2017, and while the jury deliberated, a bench trial was conducted as to equitable issues. (Dkt. No. 242). The Court entered a Post-Trial Docket Control Order setting the conduct of post-trial proceedings. (Dkt. No. 243).

The Parties1 submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on January, 29, 2018. (Dkt. No. 295; Dkt. No. 296).

Having reviewed the Parties’ submissions and the whole of the record evidence, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to show that the Asserted Claims are barred under the doctrines2 of either unclean hands or inequitable conduct. The Court hereby ADOPTS the Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. No. 295) in their entirety as its own, and accordingly, for the reasons set forth therein, hereby DENIES and DISMISSES NetScout’s defenses of inequitable conduct and unclean hands.

Footnotes

  1. 1 For clarity, Plaintiff Packet Intelligence LLC will be referred to as “Plaintiff,” “Packet Intelligence,” or “PI.” Similarly, Defendants NetScout Systems, Inc., Tektronix Communications, and Tektronix Texas, LLC will be referred to as “Defendants,” “NetScout,” or the “NetScout Defendants.”

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2018).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00230-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_16-cv-00230-1

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.