Cisco Systems Inc. has petitioned U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright to declare a mistrial in its ongoing legal battle over alleged server patent infringement. The tech giant contends that Judge Albright’s fluctuating claim construction undermined its defense strategy, prompting Cisco to seek a fresh trial.
Cisco Mistrial Request : Shifting Definitions Spark Controversy
In its Wednesday motion, Cisco claims that it based its defense against Paltalk Holdings Inc.’s infringement allegations on Judge Albright’s initial claim construction guidance. However, Cisco argues that this guidance shifted dramatically during the trial, particularly regarding the term “each.” Initially a point of contention, the term’s definition evolved from a jury determination to a court decision and back to the jury by Tuesday.
Cisco asserts that this inconsistency has compromised its ability to effectively present its case, alleging significant damage to its defense strategy. The company argues that these changes have left it “off balance” and believes a mistrial is necessary to restore fairness in the proceedings.
Strategic Impact of Changing Definitions
During pre-trial claim construction, Cisco advocated for defining “each” in Paltalk’s server patent as “all,” asserting this as the term’s “plain and ordinary meaning.” However, Paltalk’s expert testimony introduced a conflicting definition of “one or more,” leading to judicial confusion and altering Cisco’s trial strategy.
