Judge Albright initially left the definition to the jury but later informed Cisco that he had unilaterally construed the term. By the trial’s second day, he reversed course again, directing the jury to decide the term’s meaning. Cisco argues that this flip-flopping occurred after it had already presented its technical witnesses, who were selected based on prior guidance.
Cisco Mistrial Request : Opposition and Further Legal Actions
Paltalk Holdings countered Cisco’s mistrial request, claiming the court’s definition of “each” remained consistent. The patent holder argues that Cisco’s confusion is a ploy to mask its inability to accept the court’s construction, which Paltalk asserts would clearly indicate Cisco’s infringement.
In a parallel legal move, Cisco Systems has also filed for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that Paltalk Holdings failed to provide concrete evidence of infringement and thus is not entitled to damages. This motion for judgment does not address the mistrial request directly, highlighting the complexity of Cisco’s legal strategy.
Representation and Next Steps
Paltalk Holdings is represented by Mark D. Siegmund of Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC and a team from Susman Godfrey LLP, including Max L. Tribble Jr., Ryan Caughey, Amber B. Magee, and Kalpana Srinivasan. Cisco Systems’ legal team includes Sarah E. Piepmeier, Elise Edlin, Robin L. Brewer, Nathan B. Sabri, and others from Perkins Coie LLP and Potter Minton.
