throbber
WDTX Judge Moves Roku Patent Trial To August
`Amid Virus
`WDTX Judge Moves Roku Patent Trial To August Amid Virus -Law360
`Page 1 of 2
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1283085/print?section=ip
`6/18/2020
`Law360 (June 15, 2020, 5:52 PM EDT) -- U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright on Monday
`postponed a patent jury trial involving Roku that was set for this month until August due to
`the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted that because of the ongoing public health emergency,
`he can't guarantee it will take place at that time.
`The jury trial in the case — where MV3 Partners LLC accuses Roku of infringing its
`streaming media patent — had been set to begin June 29 in the Western District of Texas,
`after being postponed from June 1. However, Judge Albright said Monday that holding the
`trial in June is no longer feasible, according to minutes of a phone conference in the court
`docket.
`"The court explained that we will not be able to hold the trial as it has been set due to the
`pandemic," the minute entry said. "The court suggests August 3, however he cannot
`guarantee that the pandemic will allow the trial to go forward then."
`The parties said they would confer with their clients about whether Aug. 3 or Aug. 10
`would be a better date. Both those dates are Mondays, and Judge Albright said he planned
`to hold jury selection on the Thursday or Friday before. The judge also canceled a final
`pretrial conference planned for this Thursday and said it would instead be held about 10
`days before the new trial date.
`The trial was initially set to begin on June 1. In early April, Roku asked the judge to
`reschedule, saying it was concerned that because its attorneys, who live in Virginia and
`Maryland, were under stay-at-home orders due to the pandemic, they might not be able to
`travel to Waco, Texas, for trial.
`Days later, Judge Albright — who touts his court as a place where patent cases go to trial
`quickly — rejected Roku's request, saying that "because trial is still several weeks away,
`it is premature to continue the case at this time."
`However, he said that he was willing to consider "all reasonable adjustments" to the
`schedule, noting that "preparing for a patent trial can be an arduous task in the best of
`times and is obviously much more difficult when mobility has been severely restricted by
`the government."
`On May 8, Western District of Texas Chief Judge Orlando Garcia ordered that all trials in
`the district scheduled through June 30 would have to be continued due to the pandemic,
`with new dates set by each presiding judge.
`Judge Albright responded the following week by rescheduling the Roku trial for June 29
`Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
`Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | customerservice@law360.com
`By Ryan Davis
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1025, Page 1
`
`

`

`WDTX Judge Moves Roku Patent Trial To August Amid Virus -Law360
`Page 2 of 2
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1283085/print?section=ip
`6/18/2020
`before an eight-member jury. He said the date was "unavoidable" and that the "trial must
`go when set," according to minutes of the conference where he rescheduled the case.
`The courts in Texas have started conducting in-person jury trials during the pandemic,
`with the Eastern District of Texas conducting one last week in a slip-and-fall case. The
`judge told Law360 that when jurors were asked if they were concerned about the virus,
`"not one hand went up."
`MV3 filed suit in October 2018, alleging Roku TVs and some of the company's media
`players — the Roku Streaming Stick, Roku Ultra and Roku Express — infringe its patent on
`a system that streams media content from a mobile phone to larger displays such as
`televisions.
`Counsel for Roku and MV3 could not immediately be reached Monday for comment about
`the latest postponement.
`The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,863,223.
`MV3 is represented by Jonathan K. Waldrop, Darcy L. Jones, Marcus A. Barber, John W.
`Downing, Heather S. Kim, Jack Shaw, ThucMinh Nguyen and Paul G. Williams of Kasowitz
`Benson Torres LLP; J. Mark Mann, G. Blake Thompson and Andy Tindel of Mann Tindel &
`Thompson; and Craig D. Cherry of Haley & Olson PC.
`Roku is represented by Alexander J. Hadjis, Lisa M. Mandrusiak, W. Todd Baker,
`Christopher Ricciuti and Frank West of Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt LLP; Richard D.
`Milvenan of McGinnis Lochridge LLP; and David N. Deaconson of Pakis Giotes Page &
`Burleson PC.
`The case is MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc., case number 6:18-cv-00308, in the U.S.
`District Court for the Western District of Texas.
`--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg, Britain Eakin, Dani Kass, Jack Queen and Daniel
`Siegal. Editing by Daniel King.
`All Content © 2003-2020, Portfolio Media, Inc.
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1025, Page 2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket