Over the past 12 months, juries in Texas awarded plaintiffs billions in damages in cases ranging from patent infringement disputes to suits over fatal incidents.
Juries in the Eastern District of Texas handed out the largest and second-largest awards of the year and five of the Top 10. But no jury in the state cracked the $1 billion damages award threshold in a single case in 2024. The top spot in 2023 was a $1.2 billion award handed down in a revenge porn lawsuit in Harris County District Court.
2024 was rough for technology giant Samsung Electronics, which was on the wrong side of four of the biggest Texas jury verdicts of the year.
Below is a list compiled by The Texas Lawbook detailing the 10 largest jury awards of the year, including a rundown of the cases and an update on where they currently stand.
General Access Solutions v. Verizon Wireless — Eastern District of Texas
$847M Verdict in Patent Infringement Trial
A weeklong trial in Marshall ended with an $847 million infringement verdict against Verizon Wireless in a lawsuit brought by Dallas-based General Access Solutions over two patents that cover 5G wireless mobile technology.
Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas Rodney Gilstrap presided over the case. The jury returned its verdict in June, and Judge Gilstrap issued an order Sept. 30 granting Verizon’s motion for a new trial.
“After careful consideration of Verizon’s arguments and having presided over the entirety of the jury trial while seeing and hearing the same evidence and arguments as the jury, the court ultimately concludes that the jury’s verdict is against the great weight of the evidence to such a material degree that a new trial is necessary,” he wrote.
The second trial began Dec. 6 with jury selection but, two days later, the parties filed a joint motion informing the court they had reached a settlement in principle.
Judge Gilstrap has stayed the case until Jan. 8 to allow the parties to file dismissal papers.
General Access, formerly known as Raze Technologies, Inc., pioneered 4G wireless networks in the early 2000s, and filed this lawsuit against Verizon in 2022, alleging when the company began rolling out its 5G network in 2018, it did so by infringing on a General Access Solutions patent. The lawsuit also accused Verizon of infringing another patent via its wireless devices like home and office routers and Wi-Fi hot spots.
At trial, Verizon had argued the patents were invalid because of a lack of written description or because they weren’t fully enabled. Verizon issued a statement after the jury verdict was issued, vowing to challenge the award.
General Access is represented by Glen E. Summers, Nosson D. Knobloch, Michael J. Valaik, Giovanni J. Sanchez, John Hughes, Luke Beasley and Taylor Kelson of Bartlit Beck and T. John Ward Jr., Charles Everingham IV and Andrea L. Fair of Ward Smith & Hill.
Verizon is represented by Josh A. Krevitt, Katherine Q. Dominguez, Brian A. Rosenthal, Sung Bin Lee, Jaysen S. Chung, Andrew W. Robb, Ashbey N. Morgan and Michelle J. Zhu of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm.
The case number is 2:22-cv-00394.
Netlist v. Micron Technology — Eastern District of Texas
$445M Verdict in Patent Infringement Trial
Netlist secured a big win after a jury in Marshall agreed Micron Technology had infringed two of its patents covering computer memory technology.
The jury, which was seated May 20, returned its verdict in favor of Netlist May 23, awarding Netlist $425 million for infringement of one patent and $20 million for infringement of the other.
Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas Rodney Gilstrap presided over the case and entered final judgment in favor of Netlist on July 11, holding that the company can recover its damages in the form of a running royalty against Micron.
And while the jury had found Micron’s infringement was “willful,” Chief Judge Gilstrap wrote that an enhancement of the award based on that finding “is not warranted” in this case.
The deadline for post-trial briefing in the case was Oct. 30, and there has been no ruling from the court regarding the arguments made in sealed filings.
Netlist is represented by Jason Sheasby, Annita Zhong, Andrew J. Strabone and Michael W. Tezyan of Irell & Manella and Jennifer Truelove and Samuel F. Baxter of McKool Smith.
Micron is represented by Thomas M. Melsheimer, Natalie Arbaugh, Rex A. Mann, Michael Rueckheim, David P. Enzminger, Ryuk Park and Matthew R. McCullough of Winston & Strawn.
The case number is 2:22-cv-00294.
Yanas v. Pagourtzis — Galveston County Court-at-Law
$330M Verdict in School Shooting Case
A civil trial over a 2018 school shooting in a community south of Houston resulted in an award of $330 million in favor of the families of the 10 who were killed and 13 who were injured.
Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who has repeatedly been found not competent to stand trial on capital murder charges, was found 80 percent liable for the shooting at Santa Fe High School. He was 17 and a student at the school at the time of the shooting. Ammunition company Lucky Gunner was found to be 20 percent liable. The company, which was not a party at trial, reached a settlement with the victims’ families prior to trial.
The jury trial began July 29, according to court records and ended after 15 days of testimony on Aug. 16. The jury cleared Pagourtzis’ parents of liability in the shooting. Court records do not indicate a notice of appeal has been filed in the case.
Judge Jack Ewing presided over the case.
The plaintiffs are represented by Clint McGuire of McGuire Injury Law, Lewis M. Chandler and Sherry Scott Chandler of The Chandler Law Firm, Lawrence M. Tylka of Tylka Law Firm and Blake Apffel of Apffel Legal.
Pagourtzis is represented by Lori Laird of Pasadena, Texas, and Nick Poehl of The Poehl Law Firm.
The case number is CV-0081158.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Samsung Electronics — Harrison County District Court
$287M Verdict in Breach of Contract Case
On Feb. 23, after four days of testimony and three hours of deliberation, a jury in Judge Brad Morin’s courtroom found Samsung Electronics had breached its contract with Koninklijke KPN N.V. and owed $287 million as a result.
But the verdict drew a quick challenge from Samsung, which has alleged it was the victim of an “about face” by Koninklijke. Samsung argued while the company had maintained since filing suit in September 2022 that it wasn’t suing Samsung for patent infringement, that was the basis of the massive verdict rendered against it.
Koninklijke accused Samsung of breaching the terms of a 2016 settlement agreement that included a license for certain patents and sued for breach and unjust enrichment.
After the jury returned its verdict against Samsung, the company removed the case to federal court alleging that Koninklijke “inappropriately raised patent claims that must be heard by a federal court.”
Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas Rodney Gilstrap issued an order April 24 remanding the lawsuit back to state court. In a report and recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne April 4, he wrote that “there is no credible argument that the breach of contract claim necessarily raises a patent law issue,” but that KPN’s unjust enrichment claim “comes closer.”
“Under Inspired Development, whether an unjust enrichment claim necessarily raises a patent issue is determined by asking whether demonstrating infringement is the only way the plaintiff can succeed on its claim,” Judge Payne explained, citing a 2019 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. “If alternative means of proving unjust enrichment, such as ‘avoiding litigation,’ ‘acquiring investment’ or ‘preventing competition’ are available, patent law is not ‘necessarily raised.’ It falls on Samsung here to establish that KPN’s unjust enrichment claim can only be proven by showing patent infringement. On this record, the Court finds that Samsung cannot make that showing.”
Samsung filed an appeal with the Sixth Court of Appeals Dec. 6, but only notice of the filing, and not an actual copy of the filing, was available on the court’s website.
The Sixth Court of Appeals issued an order Dec. 19 abating the case and sending it back to the trial court for a hearing on Samsung’s motion to seal the record and file its appellate brief under seal.
Koninklijke is represented by Alexandra G. White, Andres C. Healy, Eliza Rosa Finley, Hunter Vance, Samir Doshi and Tamar Lusztig of Susman Godfrey and Justin K. Truelove of Truelove Law Firm.
Samsung is represented by Melissa R. Smith and Harry Gillam Jr. of Gillam & Smith, Thomas E. O’Brien of Baker Botts and John F. Bash and Kevin Hardy of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
The Harrison County case number is 22-0762. The federal case number is 2:24-cv-00135.
Ferron v. McDonald — Bexar County District Court
$210M Verdict in Murder, Unjust Enrichment Case
In March, a Bexar County jury awarded the family of a woman who was killed by her husband $210 million in damages — $110 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.
Andreen Nicole McDonald’s mother, Hyacinth Ferron, filed suit against former Air Force Reserve Maj. Andre Sean McDonald in July 2022. She alleged her son-in-law killed her daughter then burned and hid her body after an argument over the business the couple ran.
The jury, over three days of testimony, heard evidence from the family that Andre McDonald took control of his wife’s assets, including the business they shared and real estate, after she was killed.
The jury determined Andre McDonald caused his wife’s death and was unjustly enriched at the expense of their child by taking control of five real estate properties, two businesses, a Chevrolet Malibu, a Porsche Macan and two bank accounts.
Andre McDonald was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years in prison in February 2023. He was also convicted on three charges of tampering with evidence, which carried an additional five-year sentence. He’s eligible for parole in 2030, according to state records.
It did not appear, based on a search of court records, that an appeal has been filed in the case as of Dec. 27.
Bexar County District Judge Cynthia Marie Chapa presided over the case.
Ferron is represented by Desiree Marrufo, Ralph Lopez and Ron Salazar of Davis Law Firm.
McDonald is represented by Robert F. White of San Antonio.
The case number is 2022CI12922.
Mojo Mobility v. Samsung Electronics — Eastern District of Texas
$192M Verdict in Patent Infringement Case
California-based startup Mojo Mobility convinced a jury in September that Samsung Electronics had infringed five of its patents covering wireless charging technology and awarded the company $192.1 million in damages.
The jury, which deliberated for about six hours over two days, had been asked to award Mojo $303 million and give it a running royalty, but the panel instead awarded damages in a lump sum.
Samsung argued it hadn’t infringed the patents and that they were invalid.
Jurors were told Mojo was formed in 2005, began filing patent applications for wireless charging devices in 2006 and by 2007 was in discussions — initiated by Samsung — about the technology, and Mojo hoped to form a business relationship that would net it a royalty of about $2 per device.
During that process, Mojo provided prototypes and technical information. Samsung broke off discussions, jurors were told, and in 2015 it launched a phone that utilized the technology, Mojo alleged.
Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas Rodney Gilstrap presided over the case. On Dec. 19, Judge Gilstrap presided over a four-hour bench trial on Samsung’s laches defense, where the company argued that Mojo had waited too long to prosecute its patents, rendering them unenforceable.
As of Dec. 27, no ruling had been issued by the court on that issue.
Mojo is represented by Steven J. Pollinger, Jennifer Leigh Truelove Christopher Paul McNett, George Theodore Fishback Jr., Kyle N. Ryman, Charles E. Fowler Jr., Kenneth Scott, Kevin Lee Burgess, Neil Vasant Ozarkar, Ryan Bradley McBeth and Sam F. Baxter of McKool Smith.
Samsung is represented by Robert Unikel, Allan M. Soobert, David Valente, Elizabeth Louise Brann, Igor Victor Timofeyev, James V. Razick, Jason Mikus, John Anthony Cotiguala, Matthias Andreas Kamber, Sasha Vujcic and Soyoung Jung of Paul Hastings, Andrew Thompson Gorham, James Travis Underwood and Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith and George Philip Cowden of Cowden Law Firm.
The case number is 2:22-cv-00398.
G+ Communications v. Samsung Electronics — Eastern District of Texas
$142M Verdict in Patent Infringement Case
In April, after Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas Rodney Gilstrap on his own ordered a new trial take place, a jury determined Samsung owed G+ Communications $142 million in damages for infringing two patents covering 5G technology.
At the original trial, jurors determined Samsung owed $67.5 million for infringement, but Judge Gilstrap ordered the re-do, citing likely juror confusion. Specifically, he stated in the order that he believed that “the jury may have awarded damages in the form of a running royalty when it intended to award them as a lump sum.”
Still seemingly unsatisfied with the jury’s resolution of the case, the day after the second verdict was rendered, Judge Gilstrap ordered the parties to mediation regarding the allegations of infringement of one of the patents and severed the infringement claims related to the other patent into a separate proceeding that he immediately stayed.
Mediator David Folsom filed a report with the court June 14 explaining that an impasse had been declared.
Three days later, Judge Gilstrap entered final judgment in the case, which he amended in July, awarding G+ $61 million in damages in a lump sum.
In September, the parties exchanged briefing on Samsung’s argument that the patent being litigated is invalid. Samsung has also requested judgment in its favor as a matter of law and a new trial. As of Dec. 27, a ruling had not been issued by the court on those issues.
There has been no movement in the severed action since June.
G+ is represented by Jennifer Truelove of McKool Smith and Jason Sheasby of Irell & Manella.
Samsung is represented by Ruffin B. Cordell of Fish & Richardson and Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith.
The case number is 2:22-cv-00078.
AlmondNet v. Amazon — Western District of Texas
$122M Verdict in Patent Infringement Case
Amazon.com was hit with a $121.95 million jury verdict in Waco after jurors agreed it had infringed patents held by a company that describes itself as “an industry leader and pioneer in privacy-friendly, targeted advertising.”
AlmondNet filed suit in August 2021, accusing Amazon of infringing six patents covering “novel internet/network based advertising systems and methods.” The jury was asked to decide whether Amazon had infringed two patents
Trial began with jury selection June 10. The jury returned its verdict June 14. U.S. District Judge Alan Albright presided over the case.
Judge Albright entered final judgment in the case Sept. 24, awarding AlmondNet $121.95 million in damages as a lump sum and an additional award of prejudgment interest totaling $14.6 million.
Amazon filed a renewed motion for judgment in its favor as a matter of law in October, and AlmondNet filed a response in opposition the following month. As of Dec. 27, there had not been a ruling from the court on that issue.
AlmondNet is represented by Amy Hayden, Daniel Kolko, James Tsuei, Reza Mirzaie, Jonathan Ma, Adam Hoffman, Marc Fenster of Russ August & Kabat in Los Angeles and Andrea Fair of Miller Fair Henry in Longview.
Amazon is represented by Christopher L. Larson, Dargaye Churnet, J. David Hadden, James Trainor, Ravi Ranganath and Daina S. Shamilov of Fenwick & West and Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm.
The case number is 6:21-cv-00898.
Netlist v. Samsung — Eastern District of Texas
$118M Verdict in Patent Infringement Case
In November, jurors in the courtroom of Chief U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas Rodney Gilstrap found Samsung infringed three patents belonging to Netlist that cover memory modules.
Netlist, a California-based manufacturer of semiconductors, filed suit in August 2022, alleging Samsung had been infringing its patents since 2020, when a five-year licensing agreement expired.
Samsung argued that it hadn’t infringed the patents and that the patents were invalid. The jury was empaneled Nov. 12 and heard six days of testimony before rejecting Samsung’s argument and awarding damages in a lump sum to Netlist.
Judge Gilstrap entered final judgment in Netlist’s favor Dec. 2.
Netlist is represented by Jason Sheasby, Lisa Glasser, Tony Rowles and Andrew Strabone of Irell & Manella and Jennifer Truelove of McKool Smith.
Samsung is represented by Ruffin Cordell, Lauren Degnan, Daniel Tishman and Thomas Reger of Fish & Richardson and Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith.
The case number is 2:22-cv-00293.
Jean v. Guyger — Northern District of Texas
$98.6M Verdict in Excessive Force Case
A verdict returned by a federal jury in Dallas against a police officer who shot and killed a man who was sitting inside his apartment rounds out this year’s Top 10 largest jury awards list.
Botham Jean was shot and killed inside his apartment in September 2018 by then-Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who was off duty at the time and maintained she believed she was entering her apartment and fired shots at Jean believing he was an intruder.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the family Nov. 20, awarding $38.65 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages. The damages award was predicated on findings that Guyger had used excessive force and had acted with malice, willfulness or callous and reckless indifference to Jean’s safety or rights.
Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn presided over the three-day trial that began Nov. 18. The Jean family filed the federal lawsuit in October 2018.
The Jean family is represented by Daryl K. Washington of Washington Law Firm, Brooke Cluse, Ben Crump and Gabrielle Higgins of Ben Crump Law and Bhavani Raveendran, Colton Taylor and Antonio Romanucci of Romanucci & Blandin in Chicago.
Guyger, who is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence, represented herself.
The case number is 3:18-cv-02862.
Krista Torralva contributed to this report.