InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Monterey2000]

Loop, Any thoughts on why Judge Lynn allowed the ERICY attornies to speak with three jurors prior to the final judgement and certainly prior to any appeal to a higher court? I agree with the editor of the article below that it is most unusual.

Harris vs Ericsson

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=98%2DCV%2D2903&s=TX&d=21951

Date: 11/30/02

Case Style: Harris Corporation v. Ericsson

Case Number: 98-CV-2903

Judge: Barbara M. G. Lynn

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Henry C. Bunsow of Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, San Francisco; Denise M. De Mory of De Mory & Graigg, San Francisco, California; and Brett C. Govett of Fulbright & Jaworski, Dallas, Texas

Defendant's Attorney: Monte M. Bond and Alan L. Whitehurst of Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, Alexandria, Virginia and Eric W. Buehter, Douglas A. Cawley, Christopher M. Joe, Robert M. Manley and Mike McKool of McKool Smith, Dallas, Texas

Description: Patent infringement claim. Harris Corporation claimed that Ericsson infringed Harris' patent for digital transmissions over a dynamic dispersion channel both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.

Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict in the amount of $61 million with a finding that the infringement was willfull.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Editor's Note: The verdict in this case may be doubled because of the finding of willfulness. On November 20, 2002, Judge Lynn authorized the attorneys for the parties to contact three of the jurors who were on the jury that decided this case to discuss the verdict. It is most unusual for a federal judge to allow attorneys to contact jurors.