--- title: "Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem" meta: "og:title": " Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem" --- Jury Verdict Categories ### **Jury Verdict Articles** Explore jury verdict articles and case studies. ## **Search** ## **Filters** [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Valve_Corporation.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-slams-patent-troll-with-159k-verdict-over-bad-faith) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) [**Consumer protection**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/consumer-protection) April 9, 2026 ###### [Jury Slams Patent Troll With $159K Verdict Over Bad Faith](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-slams-patent-troll-with-159k-verdict-over-bad-faith) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-slams-patent-troll-with-159k-verdict-over-bad-faith) A federal jury in Seattle delivered a stinging rebuke to a well-known patent licensing operation, awarding Valve Corporation $159,457 after finding that Leigh Rothschild, his network of shell entities, and their Seattle attorney repeatedly threatened the Steam platform owner over patents Valve had already paid to license back in 2016. Jurors found Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221 invalid as obvious, ruled that Display Technologies materially breached the parties' Global Settlement and License Agreement by suing Valve in 2022, and concluded that every Defendant, including attorney Samuel Meyler and his firm, made bad-faith infringement assertions in violation of Washington's Patent Troll Prevention Act and Consumer Protection Act. The verdict marks one of the rare occasions a jury has tagged a prolific patent assertion entity with statutory bad-faith liability under state law, and increased damages on top. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Phenix_Longhorn.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-clears-lcd-panel-makers-in-gamma-voltage-patent-trial) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) April 1, 2026 ###### [Jury Clears LCD Panel Makers in Gamma Voltage Patent Trial](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-clears-lcd-panel-makers-in-gamma-voltage-patent-trial) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-clears-lcd-panel-makers-in-gamma-voltage-patent-trial) A federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a unanimous defense verdict in a patent infringement case involving gamma correction chip technology used in LCD televisions. The Plaintiff failed to prove infringement on any asserted claim across two patents, and the jury invalidated key claims of one patent for lack of written description. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Robert_Bosch.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-clears-auto-parts-giant-in-fuel-injector-patent-fight) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) March 31, 2026 ###### [Jury Clears Auto Parts Giant in Fuel Injector Patent Fight](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-clears-auto-parts-giant-in-fuel-injector-patent-fight) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/jury-clears-auto-parts-giant-in-fuel-injector-patent-fight) A federal jury in Marshall, Texas returned a unanimous verdict finding no patent infringement in a dispute over high-pressure fuel injector technology used in millions of automobiles. The Plaintiff, a global auto parts supplier, successfully defended against claims that its piezo fuel injectors copied a patented passive hydraulic link design originally developed for natural gas engine systems. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Longitude_Licensing_Limited.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/texas-jury-awards-668m-in-lcd-patent-case-against-boe-tech) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) February 2, 2026 ###### [Texas Jury Awards $66.8M in LCD Patent Case Against BOE Tech](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/texas-jury-awards-668m-in-lcd-patent-case-against-boe-tech) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/texas-jury-awards-668m-in-lcd-patent-case-against-boe-tech) A federal jury in Marshall, Texas awarded Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited $66,865,027 after finding that BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. willfully infringed three patents covering liquid crystal display technology. The jury determined that the Chinese display manufacturer violated patents related to LCD devices, electro-optical devices, and semiconductor display technology. Judge Rodney Gilstrap entered final judgment on January 27, 2026, declining to enhance damages despite the willfulness finding. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/MyChoice.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/taiv-wins-patent-case-against-mychoice-barboards) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) December 24, 2025 ###### [Taiv Wins Patent Case Against MyChoice & BarBoards](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/taiv-wins-patent-case-against-mychoice-barboards) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/taiv-wins-patent-case-against-mychoice-barboards) In MyChoice, LLC and BarBoards LLC v. Taiv, Inc., the jury delivered a complete victory for defendant Taiv, Inc. in a patent dispute over commercial television content replacement technology. The plaintiffs alleged that Taiv infringed four claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,658, which covers systems that detect and replace video content in real-time. However, the jury unanimously found that Taiv did not infringe any of the asserted claims and further determined that all four claims are invalid. Judge Rodney Gilstrap entered judgment on December 17, 2025, declaring Taiv the prevailing party and awarding it the right to recover costs from the plaintiffs. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Sonate_Corporation.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/vegadelphia-v-beyond-meat-39m-trademark-verdict) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) [**Trademark Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/trademark-infringement) December 16, 2025 ###### [Vegadelphia v. Beyond Meat: $39M Trademark Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/vegadelphia-v-beyond-meat-39m-trademark-verdict) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/vegadelphia-v-beyond-meat-39m-trademark-verdict) In a decisive intellectual property ruling, a federal jury awarded Sonate Corporation (d/b/a Vegadelphia) approximately $39 million after finding Beyond Meat willfully infringed on its registered trademark. The dispute centered on Beyond Meat's "Great Taste Plant-Based" national advertising campaign, which the jury found to be confusingly similar to Vegadelphia's long-standing slogan "Where Great Taste is Plant-Based." The verdict included significant awards for both actual damages and the disgorgement of profits. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Express_Mobile_11.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/express-mobile-wins-170m-verdict-against-godaddy) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) December 5, 2025 ###### [Express Mobile Wins $170M Verdict Against GoDaddy](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/express-mobile-wins-170m-verdict-against-godaddy) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/express-mobile-wins-170m-verdict-against-godaddy) On November 6, 2025, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:19-cv-01937) returned a unanimous verdict in the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Express Mobile, Inc. against GoDaddy.com, LLC. Express Mobile, an inventor-owned company, alleged that GoDaddy's Website Builder and WordPress Website products infringed its foundational patents related to browser-based website creation tools. The trial focused on two of the five originally asserted patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,546,397 and U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168. The jury awarded Express Mobile total damages in the amount of $170,000,000.00 ($170 Million), structured as royalties over the life of the patents. This figure represents the full amount of damages sought by Express Mobile. GoDaddy had asserted multiple defenses, including non-infringement and patent invalidity. The verdict represents a significant victory for Express Mobile on the liability questions and marks one of the year's largest patent verdicts against a mainstream internet platform. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Spartan_Composites.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/spartan-v-signature-16m-trade-secret-verdict-in-texas) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) [**Trademark Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/trademark-infringement) December 4, 2025 ###### [Spartan v. Signature: $16M Trade Secret Verdict in Texas](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/spartan-v-signature-16m-trade-secret-verdict-in-texas) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/spartan-v-signature-16m-trade-secret-verdict-in-texas) A Texas jury delivered a split verdict in a high-stakes trade secret dispute between composite mat manufacturers, awarding Spartan Composites over $16 million after finding that Signature Systems Group willfully misappropriated confidential marketing strategies, pricing information, and customer lists obtained during failed acquisition talks. However, the jury also sided with Signature on its counterclaim, awarding $2.4 million for Spartan's breach of a 2019 settlement agreement that prohibited manufacturing interoperable products. The case stemmed from two rounds of acquisition discussions in 2018 and 2021, during which Signature gained extensive access to FODS business information under confidentiality agreements. When Spartan later acquired FODS in 2024, the complex web of prior agreements and alleged misappropriation led to litigation that exposed both companies' competitive tactics in the industrial matting industry. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Pictiva_Displays_International.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/samsung-hit-with-191m-verdict-in-oled-patent-case) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) November 19, 2025 ###### [Samsung Hit With $191M Verdict in OLED Patent Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/samsung-hit-with-191m-verdict-in-oled-patent-case) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/samsung-hit-with-191m-verdict-in-oled-patent-case) A high-stakes patent battle in the Eastern District of Texas ended with a sweeping victory for Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited. The dispute centered on allegations that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. incorporated Pictiva’s patented OLED display technology into their products without authorization. Pictiva filed suit in late 2023, accusing Samsung of direct and indirect infringement involving patents such as the ’547, ’223, ’164, and ’425 patents. Despite the efforts, the jury found that Samsung directly infringed several asserted patent claims and rejected Samsung’s invalidity arguments. The jury also concluded that the infringement was willful, exposing Samsung to potential enhanced damages. On November 3, 2025, the jury awarded Pictiva $191.4 million in reasonable royalty damages, structured as a one-time lump-sum payment covering Samsung’s unauthorized use of the OLED technology. The verdict established that Pictiva’s patents were valid, enforceable, and infringed, marking a significant win for the Plaintiffs in one of the year’s major patent cases. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/change_31.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/optis-wins-300m-frand-patent-verdict-against-apple) [**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Intellectual Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law) October 29, 2025 ###### [Optis Wins $300M FRAND Patent Verdict Against Apple](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/optis-wins-300m-frand-patent-verdict-against-apple) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/intellectual-property-law/jury-verdict/optis-wins-300m-frand-patent-verdict-against-apple) In a landmark patent infringement case, Optis Wireless Technology and its affiliates won a $300 million jury verdict against Apple Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The dispute centered on Apple’s use of LTE-standard technology in its devices without paying FRAND-compliant royalties. Optis claimed Apple’s infringement was willful, depriving them of rightful licensing revenue. Apple countered with defenses of non-infringement and invalid patents. After extensive testimony, the jury awarded Optis a $300 million lump-sum FRAND royalty. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld parts of the verdict, reversed others, and remanded certain issues for further proceedings, keeping the case active and its final outcome pending. 1 2 3 ... 5