MARSHALL,TX—Would anyone be uncomfortable handing $5 million to someone over a patent?

That's one of the questions that a lawyer for a mysterious company called TQP Development put to a panel of potential jurors here yesterday. In the process of choosing a jury to preside in TQP's showdown with online retailer Newegg, more information about TQP has become public. The company became controversial last year when it earned publicity for suing hundreds of companies over commonly used Web encryption technology. It's also owned by prolific patent licensor Erich Spangenberg, a man who Newegg's top lawyer, Lee Cheng, has referred to as a "patent troll."

The demand is actually low by the standards of patent cases that go to trial. It can cost $5 million just to try a patent case, and it's extremely difficult to do so for less than $2 million. It's very likely that Newegg could have escaped the case for under $500,000 at some point.

But the TQP patent campaign has always been about breadth. It has collected around $40 million from the companies it has sued, according to Spangenberg. With more than 20 companies still in the litigation pipeline, TQP's push against Newegg actually has more to do with protecting its ability to collect on those cases—and Newegg's refusal to back down.

While $5 million may be "low" to patent damages experts, it's obviously a lot of money to most people. Marc Fenster, the TQP lawyer handling jury selection, was sensitive to that.

"The total that TQP is asking for is substantial," he acknowledged. "The evidence shows Mr. Spangenberg got a good deal on this patent. He bought it for around $750,000." Would jurors have a problem with $5 million?

"I think $5 million would be an excessive amount," said one man, juror number 25.

"I have a problem wrapping my brain around what $5 million is like," said a female juror, number 12. "I've never owned a company. I've been a worker all my life at a moderate salary. If someone put time and effort into it and earned that much, I would have no problem with it."

Number 12 was struck from the jury.

The question was part of a two-hour process of narrowing down the pool of nearly 30 potential jurors. Jurors answered a series of standard questions about their city of residence, place of employment, education level, and family status.

During the questioning period, they were asked about their experiences with computers: Did they shop online? Had they heard of Newegg? Had anyone ever shopped there? Did anyone have "a lot" of exposure to computers or ever design a website?

"I handle the technology problems in my house," said juror number three, a school principal who was ultimately selected. "I deal with them all the time, putting out little fires."

The woman sitting beside him, juror number four, said she was often called on to help coworkers with computers in her job as a manager at an outlet store.

"Usually it's just updating software that's already on them," she said. "Someone clicked the wrong thing and they call me. Nothing major."

Where technology meets logging

In East Texas, lawyers are allowed a fair amount of latitude for questioning during the jury selection process, and some use the opportunity to introduce themes of the case.

"Let's say a logging company does some logging on a piece of land and doesn't realize it's private property and then finds out that it [is]," said Fenster. How would the jurors feel about that?

"If they're a legitimate company, they should have known better than to be on someone else's land," suggested one woman.

Fenster also went into some explanation of what TQP does, taking the "troll" criticism head on (although that word won't be heard at this trial.) "TQP doesn't make anything," explained Fenster. "[Spangenberg] bought the patent to license it—it's an investment. Does anyone think if you have a patent and don't do anything with it, you shouldn't be able to enforce it?"

No hands went up. Fenster asked a female juror what she thought about it. "No one should infringe, even if they're not making anything." He asked another—is it OK to just license? "Yes, it's theirs," she said.

One juror got about as close as one can get to hearing an anti-patent-troll diatribe during jury selection.

"I understand that there are companies that acquire great numbers of patents and do nothing with them but litigate," said juror number 26, a younger man with a beard and ponytail. "It sort of seems like entrapment," he added hesitantly.

Since jurors are selected in Marshall starting from position number one and go "up" from there, there was almost no chance of him being selected for the jury.

"I do agree they should be able to enforce it," said juror number 2. Again, it gets into a situation where—I know it's business—but for litigation... lawsuits are clogging up the system."

Fenster reminded her of his "accidental logging" example, but she wasn't really having it.

"I think that's more physical property," she said. "But point taken."

Not long thereafter, she was struck as well.

Newegg's lawyer handling jury selection, Alan Albright, asked about a variety of topics, ranging from experiences with shopping online to tax appraisals.

Four or five jurors had either shopped at Newegg or had a family member who did. "They have good products, and we get good service," said juror number 11, whose husband had bought from Newegg. She was struck.

The tax appraisal question allowed Albright to introduce the idea that the government can get it wrong, an important concept since defendants are asking jurors, on some level, to second-guess the US Patent and Trademark Office.

"I had a house appraised for $72,000 more than I bought it for," said one man, who had fought the increased appraisal in a legal proceeding.

"So in that situation, you had a way of fighting the government and making it right?" asked Albright.

"That's correct," he said.

Under the rules in this district, each side gets four "strikes" to knock out jurors it doesn't like, which takes the number of potential pool members who will sit on the jury down to 16. Other jurors can be dismissed if they admit to being biased or would find jury service a hardship. In this case, the highest juror number picked was number 14.

The final panel of five men and three women was sworn in after 11:00am and include a nurse, a school principal, a UPS mechanic, a homemaker, and two store managers. Seven of the jurors have children; the woman who has no children looks to be in her 20s, substantially younger than the rest of the jury pool. The principal has a masters' degree in education, and two other jurors said they have attended some college.

"Our country is the only nation on the face of the earth that allows trial by jury in a civil case," US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who is overseeing the case, told the jurors. "Each of you is doing a very real part to protect and defend our Constitution by being here."

Opening statements and much of the plaintiffs' case will be heard Tuesday. Spangenberg and inventor Michael Jones are both expected to take the stand; they will be cross-examined by Newegg lawyers.