Optis asks Judge Gilstrap for re-re-retrial against Apple — preferably with JMOL on infringement — after recent adverse verdict

Context: Optis and Apple have been embroiled in a long-running battle over standard-essential patents (SEPs) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as well as in the UK (see below). Optis saw

• its original, jury-determined 2020 damages award of $506 million
• reduced the following year to $300 million after Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted a retrial because the prior jury had not been instructed on FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing),
• and — following the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit’s vacation of the award — eventually to zero by a third jury that this year found Apple had not infringed any of Optis’s five patents-in-suit (February 13, 2026 ip fray article).

What’s new: Along with a motion for a new trial, Optis has filed two motions with the district court seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on infringement of its patents by Apple (one over three patents, one over the other two). By way of JMOL, Judge Gilstrap would overrule the prior jury and narrow the issues for the hypothetical next jury.

Direct impact:

• If Judge Gilstrap grants one or both of the JMOL motions, the motion for a new trial must inevitably be granted to resolve the questions the February jury did not reach, particularly damages.
• If both JMOL motions are rejected, a retrial could still be granted over questions relating to the jury instructions or (alleged) motions in limine violations by Apple, such as warning the jury against the (allegedly) catastrophic effects of (hypothetical) royalty stacking or playing the nationality card.
• While Judge Gilstrap has previously ordered retrials, the fact that this would be the fourth trial in a single patent case will represent a psychological hurdle for him and, in the event of an appeal, the Federal Circuit. But Optis is entitled to a decision on the merits no matter how many trials have already been held.

Wider ramifications: Given that the UK courts are seeking to implement global licensing rates on Apple in the companion litigation, any new damages award and FRAND rate in the Eastern District of Texas would presumably need to be reconciled in some way with whatever eventually comes out of the UK case. It isn’t clear at this stage how that would be done as the UK litigation is not finished either.