• Home
  • News
  • Microsoft Judge Chastises Weil Lawyer for ‘Bailout’ Dig

Legal Ethics

Microsoft Judge Chastises Weil Lawyer for ‘Bailout’ Dig

Posted Aug 18, 2009 10:30 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The Texas judge who ordered Microsoft to pay $290 million for infringing a patent included a $40 million enhancement that he said was partly justified because of alleged trial misconduct by a lawyer from Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis tacked on the $40 million penalty because of evidence of willful infringement. But also “favoring enhancement,” he said in an opinion, was trial conduct by lawyer Matthew Douglas Powers, a Weil Gotshal partner.

Davis chastised Powers, saying he misrepresented the law, according to Information Week and the Seattle Post Intelligencer’s Microsoft Blog. Davis ruled last week in the infringement suit by i4i Limited Partnership.

The problem began when Powers asked jurors during voir dire about their reaction to a scenario in which a company sues, not to protect a patented product, but just to get money, according to Davis’ opinion (PDF). The judge warned Powers outside the presence of the jurors that “I think you're sort of misstating the law, and I don't want to embarrass you in front of the jury. But I would appreciate it if you would clean that up.”

But the warning was not heeded, the opinion says. “Throughout the course of trial Microsoft’s trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a nonpracticing patent owner to sue for money damages. He further persisted in improperly trying to equate i4i’s infringement case with the current national banking crisis implying that i4i was a banker seeking a ‘bailout.’ ”

Powers refused to comment, saying in an e-mail to the ABA Journal that the law firm’s response will be in its appellate brief and any statements should come from Microsoft. Microsoft issued a statement by spokesman Kevin Kutz that did not address the allegations against Powers.

“We are disappointed by the court’s ruling," the statement said. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid. We will appeal the verdict.”

Comments

1.

Once bitten twice shy Yankee
Aug 18, 2009 1:30 PM CST

The questionable judgment on the part of Microsoft was to allow a partner with its NYC powerhouse counsel, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, who was twice cursed by virtue of his San Francisco Bay Area bar membership and office base, to try the case.

It matters not that Weil Gotshal maintains two offices in the state of Texas.

The San Francisco Bay Area—Redwood Shores to be exact—(where the trial partner is based) is a universe away from the South—where anti-Semitism runs rampant, all outsiders are suspect, the bench and jury venire are still VERY pissed off about losing the civil war, and Yankee’s (let alone Yankee lawyers from the SF Bay Area or NYC, let alone Yankee lawyers with Jewish or Italian surnames)—stand a snowball’s chance in hell when litigating in one of the 11 former states of the confederacy.

Any “Northern” trial lawyer venturing into the confederacy to try a case—particularly with a firm with a Jewish, Italian, or other ethnic surname associated with the firm and without lead counsel indigenously from that state and “local counsel” indigenously from that county of federal court district to front the case in court —is on a fool’s errand.

Flag this comment

2.

wampum
Aug 20, 2009 11:16 AM CST

Or perhaps it was the facts and your trial technique.
Did you forget that they let black people and folks with jewish and italian names on the panels nowadays - yanker?
Stop making excuses and maligning 1/4 of the country for the fact that you lost 2 cases.
The comments referenced in the article might have earned at least a rebuke in any court.

Flag this comment

3.

Hal Hallihan
Aug 20, 2009 1:30 PM CST

I also disagree with the first comment.  As a Chicago attorney (in the land of Lincoln) in front of Judge Davis, from a previous firm that had an Irish name (mine) and an Indian name, I argued for and we obtained a favorable claim construction ruling where the plaintiff admitted it could not prove infringement.  In front of Judge Clark, we obtained a decision on summary judgment invalidating 7 claims for anticipation.  We did utilize good local counsel and did consider using one as lead counsel if we had gone to trial.

Flag this comment

4.

dp
Aug 21, 2009 6:15 AM CST

What would you expect from a plaintiff-friendly district?  The plaintiff attorneys get away with all sort of inept analogies and appeals to legally unprincipled thinking, so why shouldn’t the defendant be allowed to pull out those tactics?  Judges have got to be more even handed in these cases.  Make both sides stick to the facts and throw out all the crap emotionalism.

Flag this comment

5.

silencedogood
Aug 21, 2009 6:20 AM CST

Perhaps they don’t dislike Yankees in general but instead just the ones with arrogant, patronizing, elitist, not to mention ignorant attitudes, Once bitten twice shy Yankee. 

Tiums dun changg ‘roun’ heyah.  I meen, garsh, we gots us some shoes un evrahthin’.  Yeeeeehaaaaaw!

Flag this comment

6.

Lauderdale Lawyer
Aug 21, 2009 6:32 AM CST

Once you read the 65 page opinion, it becomes clear. Microsoft, as their own internal emails disclosed, stole i4i’s patent for its own use. Their lead lawyer, Mr Powers, asked incomprehensible questions and represented a thief. That doesn’t play well in Tyler, Texas. It’s worse when Powers thinks he owns the courtroom instead of the judge.

Flag this comment

7.

pkelly
Aug 21, 2009 6:59 AM CST

Yankee must be right - I saw almsot the same thing happen on an episode of Boston Legal where Alan Shore lost a death row appeal in a Texas court because he was a Yankee

Flag this comment

8.

B. McLeod
Aug 21, 2009 7:01 AM CST

Surely Microsoft could have found some competent defense counsel somewhere in Kirby-Smithdom.

Flag this comment

9.

Observer
Aug 21, 2009 8:15 AM CST

The Eastern District of TX is a notorious plaintiff-friendly venue.  The lobby of the courthouse proudly displays a framed newspaper article crowing about that fact.  That’s unconscionable, of course, and certainly not “fair” or “right” or “just,” but Mr. Powers wasn’t going to change it.  Instead, it appears he played right into it.  The table was tilted against him and his client; he needed to take that into account and react to that as best he could.  Appears to be some bad lawyering.

Flag this comment

10.

Paul Stewart
Aug 21, 2009 8:35 AM CST

Cousin Vinny did quite well with this unfounded sterotype and silly generalisms of supposedly educated professionals.

Flag this comment

11.

Steve Perkins
Aug 21, 2009 8:36 AM CST

Comment #1:  I’m not sure what put this chip on your shoulder, but I highly doubt that it came from actually trying a case in the South.  Working in Atlanta, the bar and bench are extremely diverse.  Among the population, racial tensions pop up when the government makes decisions on where to spend public funds… but all in all people are decent and get along. 

Ironically, the most bitter racists I personally know are transplants from rural Pennsylvania and Ohio.  I think the ultimate culture war split in this country isn’t a North vs. South thing, but rather an Urban vs. Rural thing.  Regardless, your broad paintbrush of the South is ignorant… and was not the cause for this case being lost.  This lawyer lost in large part because he defended Microsoft in the country’s most plaintiff-friendly venue, and repeatedly misstated the law to jurors after sidebar warnings from the bench.

Flag this comment

12.

tdr
Aug 21, 2009 8:49 AM CST

I’m still laughing over comment #4 and dp’s use of “plaintiff friendly” in connection with a Texas court.

Flag this comment

13.

AndytheLawyer
Aug 21, 2009 8:54 AM CST

Or maybe—just maybe—the jury and judge got it right because Microsoft did infringe the patent.

Face it.  Juries aren’t necessarily as stupid as defense lawyers with bad facts would like.  If Microsoft had had enough evidence to prevent the plaintiff from meeting its burden of proof, this Weil monkey wouldn’t have had to resort to “they just want money” innuendoes.  OF COURSE plaintiffs want money.  Why else sue?

Flag this comment

14.

Patent Guy
Aug 21, 2009 9:00 AM CST

I’ve been a patent attorney for more than 40 years—I started back when many other graduates of the same law schools and members of the same bar didn’t view us as “real” lawyers.  I’ve seen patent trial practice go from one of mostly bench trials by litigants just trying to resolve issues they somehow could not otherwise agree between themselves to elaborate and extremely expensive ordeals with one side, sometimes both, opting to roll the dice in the hope that some “hit ‘em & git ‘em” trial attorney will be able to hoodwink a jury into ignoring the facts.  It’s amazing who a few 8 and 9-figure awards will attract to a previously shunned practice area.  I’m a yankee, and I’ve litigated and won in Texas.  It doesn’t make any difference where you are, you ALWAYS pay close attention to the best local talent you can find, and you behave yourself like the folks you ran into at the local Wal-Mart while you were preparing for trial..

Flag this comment

15.

trial savant
Aug 21, 2009 10:13 AM CST

Misstating the law after being warned by the Judge is foolhardy.  Having the Judge award an additional $40 million in “enhancements” because of that conduct . . . priceless.

Flag this comment

16.

B. McLeod
Aug 21, 2009 10:23 AM CST

No, I think it’s $40 million.  I’ll bet Microsoft thinks so too.

Flag this comment

17.

Michael Marr
Aug 21, 2009 10:38 AM CST

$40 million? He better call his carrier.

Flag this comment

18.

prosecute1966
Aug 21, 2009 11:29 AM CST

As usual, many of the divergent opinions expressed here all speak some truth based on experience, common sense, and some amount of professional/personal bias.  Regionalsim is a real problem when going to trial—there is no great mystery that when a trial lawyer puts 12 in a box, all of the upbringing, culture, resentments, and yes, racisim, will come to bear on their decision-making.  The most skillful voir dire will not overcome that. 
Equally true is that patent law seems to have become, at least to this lawyer’s casual observation, a morass.  Large corporations DO steal technological innovations becasue it is cheaper and more expedient, in the short-term (as Microsoft found out all too clearly), than purchasing it or doing their own R & D.  However, there are bad actors out there who are, to the detriment of our society, gaming our patent law system and bringing frivolous suits in plaintiff-loving jurisdictions to extort large settlements/judgments out of deep-pocket for use of technology that they should have never received a patent for in the first place.  Microsoft will always believe that it is its manifest destiny to rule the world by hook or by crookednes—that’s why everyone hates it as a company, and that’s why they will, year after year, keep getting whacked in patent and anti-trust cases.  That being said, a $40,000,000 sanction for that behavior is more than a bit excessive.
All of this militates towards two changes:  an overhaul, omnibus style, of this nations patent laws and regs and mutual agreement by patent litigants to use alternative dispute resolution as the primary mode of settling these matters—court should be used only when ADR has been exhausted in good faith.

Flag this comment

19.

STL Attorney
Aug 21, 2009 11:57 AM CST

Excuse me Yankee, but there were 13 states in the Confederacy.  Also, just because folks down this a way aren’t partial to obnoxious Yankee carpetbaggers doesn’t mean we’re still mad about losing the War of Northern Aggression.

Flag this comment

20.

B. McLeod
Aug 21, 2009 12:58 PM CST

Now I am intrigued.  Someone please identify the extra two?

Flag this comment

21.

Texas Law
Aug 21, 2009 2:26 PM CST

At No. 20, maybe No. 19 is referring to the New Mexico Territory (New Mexico and, I think, Arizona) and Indian Territory (Oklahoma). 

As I recall, Kentucky and, now a State, West Virginia did not secede.

Flag this comment

22.

B. McLeod
Aug 21, 2009 2:49 PM CST

Moving some dusty books, I found there were abortive CSA claims to Kentucky and Missouri (both actually controlled by federal forces at the time).

Flag this comment

23.

Bean Counter
Aug 21, 2009 3:17 PM CST

Read the opinion, the defense attorney got off easy already. 

The specific statute allows the judge to impose “enchanced” damage up to three times of the jury’s award ($200M in this case).  For this attorney’s repeated violations of the judge’s instructions, the damage could very well be an addition $600M.

Flag this comment

24.

Adamius
Aug 21, 2009 7:38 PM CST

I’ve seen this a million times.  An attorney gets their case all ready to go; they have every step of it mapped out, they know how they’re going to phrase everything…and then right at the beginning, the court issues some ruling or admonition that says you can’t use that strategy.  The trick is to think on your feet and switch it to your best Plan B, preserving any objection you can and proffering anything you want to, or at least to figure out a way to argue Plan A without making it sound like Plan A at all.  This is way too much for most attorneys, apparently.  They nearly invariably politely apologize to the court and then proceed to do exactly what they were damn well gonna do anyway.  Ridiculous.  That’s grade school lawyering.  I’m glad he got cited personally in the extra $40million.  Should make him very squirmy at work and should make him rethink using bullheaded stubbornness as a courtroom tactic.

Flag this comment

25.

Justanotherlawyer
Aug 22, 2009 10:27 AM CST

If you look at the jury verdicts in EDTEX in March and April you will find that a NY lawyer in another case beat a well-known hometown team, and you will find a small firm Philadelphia lawyer beat Bill Lee and Wilmer Hale, and you will find that many of the “big name trial lawyers” that come off as arrogant to other lawyers—really offend ordinary people on the jury—Big firm big name national trial lawyers have done very poorly in EDTEX, while lawyers who know their case, know they are no better than anyone else in the room, and who present the facts, do well—whether from Philadelphia, Chicago, Tyler or anywhere else.  Large companies that hire big name big ego “trial kings” lose, lose, lose, and you would think some of them would learn not to do this in the future.

Flag this comment

26.

R
Aug 24, 2009 10:39 AM CST

But… but… This can’t be!!!

After all, Weil Gotschal is one of the ten most prestigious law firms in the country. Says so right here:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/wachtell_nabs_top_spotagain—in_prestige_rankings

Flag this comment

27.

DR
Aug 24, 2009 3:03 PM CST

@21:  West Virginia did secede from the Confederacy in 1863.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.