This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.
Local Patent Rules (Judge Andrew J. Guilford)
Local Patent Rules (Judge Otis D. Wright II)
Below are the patent jury verdicts from the Central District of California between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $3,600,219, and median time to verdict from complaint is 976 days.
| Case | Amount | Judge | Verdict Date | Time to Verdict | Technology |
| Juno Therapeutics, Inc. et al v. Kite Pharma, Inc. | $585,000,000 | S. James Otero | 12/13/2019 | 786 days | Chemical |
| Kaneka Corporation v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., et. al. | $13,488,764 | Jesus G. Bernal | 11/19/2015 | 1673 days | Chemical, Mechanical |
| CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc. | $12,500,000 | John A. Kronstadt | 9/6/2016 | 1027 days | Chemical, Drugs & Medical |
| Imagenetix, Inc. v. Robinson Pharma, Inc. et al | $6,832,842 | Josephine L. Staton | 9/25/2017 | 893 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Romeo and Juliette, Inc. et al | $5,250,838 | Terry J. Hatter, Jr. | 4/6/2018 | 1086 days | Drugs & Medical |
| EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC | $1,949,600 | Ronald S.W. Lew | 7/2/2018 | 677 days | Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical |
| Genes Industry Inc v. Custom Blinds and Components Inc | $1,018,343 | Andrew J. Guilford | 10/6/2017 | 925 days | Mechanical |
| Lubby Holdings LLC et al v. Chung et al | $863,936 | R. Gary Klausner | 5/9/2019 | 468 days | Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical, Others |
| Polara Engineering, Inc. v. Campbell Company | $412,926 | Douglas F. McCormick | 6/30/2016 | 1275 days | Computers & Communications |
| Top Lighting Corporation v. Linco Inc. | $138,363 | James V. Selna | 5/31/2019 | 1395 days | Electrical & Electronic, Others |
Percutaneous transluminal coronary sildenafil 100mg tablet angioplasty is safe and effective. generico viagra on line purchased here Link directories organize links to hundreds or thousands of sites. Secondly, the invasion of bacteria, it stems mainly from some sexually transmitted diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s diseases, Pancreatic dysfunctions like diabetes, Impairments of sight, Prevention of hair loss, Cardiovascular diseases, like congestive failure of the heart, stroke, coronary disease, and hypertension, levitra fast delivery Spinal stenosis, spinal cord injuries, and traumatic injury to the brain, Incision and wound healing after a surgery, Conditions of the musculoskeletal, Some. Managers who don’t follow through and keep commitments want more accountability in tab sildenafil their organizations.
Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:
Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the Central District of California between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.
| Case | Enjoined Product(s) | Patent Title(s) | Irreparable Harm | Date |
| QBAS CO LTD et al v. C Walters Intercoastal Corporation et al, 8-10-cv-00406 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) | Whistle snorkels | – Snorkel with whistler | Without a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will not be able to exercise its exclusive right to market and sell its patented invention. Defendant has already entered into the market and begun selling a product. Plaintiff has suffered a decline in sales of their patented products due to Defendant’s product, and has responded by cutting profits and profit margins to remain competitive. Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s competition has led to a significant drop in Plaintiff’s sales and placed them in a weaker bargaining position with their suppliers and retailers. Given the relatively small size of Plaintiff, losses this great can be devastating and even put Plaintiff out of business altogether. By entering into the market and competing with Plaintiff, Defendant also hinders Plaintiff’s ability to establish goodwill with its customer base. In the relevant market, with a vast array of models and brands for any given product, a customer is likely to stick with a brand that the customer knows and trusts. Defendant’s current financial condition also warrants a preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable harm. Defendant has been unable to pay Plaintiff for past purchases of the patented product, and has made representations explaining its precarious financial position. | 12/16/2010 |
| Cordelia Lighting, Inc. v. Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd et al, 5-14-cv-00881 (C.D. Cal. April 27, 2015) | LED fixtures | – Recessed LED lighting fixture | After Defendant entered the market, Plaintiff’s retailer demanded price reductions, which lowered Plaintiff’s wholesale price, so the retailer could reduce the retail price. Plaintiff explains that it is difficult for manufacturers in the industry to raise prices once customers have received lower prices. Additionally, Plaintiff presents evidence of loss of market share through its economic damages expert. These sharp losses are likely exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiff and Defendant are the only two players in the relevant market. Finally, Defendant is a foreign corporation, presumably with most of its assets located overseas. Therefore, it is likely that Plaintiff would face significant difficulty in collecting damages even if it prevailed at trial. | 4/27/2015 |
| Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. v. Ridge Corporation, 2-15-cv-01877 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) | Tractor-trailer fuel reduction device | – Aerodynamic drag reducing apparatus;
– Rear-mounted aerodynamic structure for truck cargo bodies |
Plaintiff has shown direct displacement, and not mere speculation of possible market share loss, of its product by Defendant’s competing offering. Multiple customers stated that they intended to purchase the relevant product from Defendant instead of Plaintiff. The customers cited a lower-priced product and Plaintiff was the only seller of the relevant product when Defendant offered its product at a lower price. Customers then demanded price reductions from Plaintiff. | 8/24/2015 |
| Razer Auto, Inc. v. Omix-ADA, Inc., 5-16-cv-00300 (C.D. Cal. April 20, 2016) | Automotive aftermarket accessories | – Vehicle fender flares (design patent) | Here, Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that Counterclaim Defendant’s product is unsafe for street use and in violation of federal law. If Counterclaim Defendant’s product indeed violates federal law, then it could result in a recall that will likely harm Counterclaim Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill. Additionally, the parties are direct competitors in the relevant market. Customers are able to pull up both products in the marketplace, and select Counterclaim Defendant’s accused product for a significantly lower cost than Counterclaim Plaintiff’s patented design product. Counterclaim Plaintiff does not license its design, and Counterclaim Defendant is offering a substantially similar design through at least one identical major sales channel at a lower price. This shows a likelihood of price erosion. | 4/20/2016 |
| Bragel International, Inc. v. Styles for Less, Inc., 8-15-cv-01756 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2016) | Bra products | – Attachable breast form enhancement system | Plaintiff argues that allowing Defendant to continue to sell infringing products will cause it irreparable harm in the form of lost sales, decreased market share, and loss of goodwill. As a competitor, Defendant is depriving Plaintiff and its retail customers of sales by selling a product which infringes Plaintiff’s patent. Furthermore, Plaintiff has documented the lower quality and manufacturing issues with the infringing products. By selling products which are difficult to distinguish in appearance, but a lower quality than Plaintiff’s product, Defendant is eroding consumer confidence in Plaintiff’s goodwill. | 12/2/2016 |
| DMF, Inc. v. AMP Plus, Inc. d/b/a ELCO Lighting et al, 2-18-cv-07090 (C.D. Cal. March 7, 2019) | LED lighting system | – Unified driver and light source assembly for recessed lighting | Plaintiff has provided some evidence that it has, indeed, lost market share and customers to Defendant. Plaintiff has also shown that Defendant is actively seeking to directly displace Plaintiff’s product with its allegedly infringing and cheaper product. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that these losses cannot be addressed by money damages alone because of the various “ecosystem” effects caused by Defendant’s infringement, including that customers are likely to keep doing business with Defendant for future projects and to tell other developers and contractors to use the Defendant brand. The threat that Defendant’s infringement poses to Plaintiff’s relationship with its sales representatives also supports a finding of likely irreparable harm. Moreover, Plaintiff has proffered expert testimony on the likely damage to its premium pricing model, as well as evidence that it has already had to lower its prices, both of which support price erosion. Money damages will be unable to restore Plaintiff’s reputation with its customers, some of whom have already indicated that they assumed both Plaintiff and Defendant’s products came from the same factory. | 3/7/2019 |
Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the Central District of California post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Emazing Lights LLC v. Ramiro Montes De Oca et al, 8-15-cv-01561 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because the complaint presents legal conclusions without factual basis, or otherwise lack factual basis for its allegations. | 6/20/2016 |
| Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd., No. CV 07-cv-02185-GHK (AJWx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167930, at *54-55 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2016) | Summary judgment of nonwillfulness warranted because defendant didn’t engage in misconduct beyond typical infringement | 12/1/2016 |
| Polara Eng’g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., No. SA CV 13-00007-DFM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27304, at *78-79 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) | After jury willfulness finding, court denies defendant’s JMOL of no willfulness and grants plaintiff’s motion to enhance damages because 5/9 Read factors favor enhancement. The jury award is enhanced by 2.5. | 2/27/2017 |
| Soteria Encryption, LLC v. Lenovo Global Technology (United States) Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-07958 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff doesn’t allege that defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent. | 2/27/2017 |
| PUMA SE et al v. Forever 21, Inc., 2-17-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff plausibly alleges that defendant had actual knowledge of the patent and knew its conduct constituted infringement. | 6/29/2017 |
| CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc., 2-13-cv-08418 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement after a jury trial is denied because there was insufficient evidence of egregious misconduct. | 7/13/2017 |
| Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. v. Ultraproof, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-01161 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff must specify the patents allegedly infringed and provide allegations that defendant sold its product in the face of an objectively high likelihood that it was infringing. | 7/24/2017 |
| Wongab Corporation v. Nordstrom, Inc. d/b/a Nordstrom Rack et al, 2-17-cv-02974 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff merely recites the elements of willfulness and doesn’t provide further factual support. | 9/21/2017 |
| Commercial Copy Innovations, Inc. v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. et al, 8-17-cv-00437 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff adequately pleaded pre-suit knowledge. | 10/16/2017 |
| Genes Industry Inc v. Custom Blinds and Components Inc, 8-15-cv-00476 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) | Following a jury trial, plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted under the Read factors; defendant copied plaintiff’s patented product and continued to sell its infringing product after receiving notice. The jury award is trebled. | 1/29/2018 |
| Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al, 8-17-cv-00981 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because allegations of knowledge and continued infringement are insufficient without alleging egregious misconduct. | 2/5/2018 |
| Fulfillium, Inc. v. ReShape Medical, Inc., 2-17-cv-08419 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded knowledge and continued infringement. | 2/7/2018 |
| Lawrence E Tannas v. Multichip Display Inc et al, 8-15-cv-00282 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because there was insufficient evidence of egregious infringement misconduct; the inquiry emphasizes infringement misconduct, not litigation misconduct. | 2/21/2018 |
| International Designs Corporation, LLC et al v. HairArt Int’l Inc., 2-17-cv-08411 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because the complaint provides allegations of knowledge of the patent and nothing more. | 2/22/2018 |
| International Designs Corporation, LLC et al v. HairArt Int’l Inc., 2-17-cv-08411 (C.D. Cal. April 19, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded egregiousness; the complaint pleads knowledge, continued infringement, and misconduct by defendant. | 4/19/2018 |
| EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 5-16-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted as to pre-suit willfulness because there is insufficient evidence of pre-suit knowledge, but the motion is denied as to post-suit willfulness. | 5/29/2018 |
| Sleep Number Corporation v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC, 5-18-cv-00356 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims is granted as to two patents because defendant did not have pre-suit notice of the potential infringement. The motion is denied as to one patent because there is evidence of prior written notice and a related ITC proceeding. | 6/26/2018 |
| Automotive Data Solutions, Inc. v. Directed Electronics Canada Inc. et al, 2-18-cv-01560 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleges that defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringed the patent in an egregious manner. | 8/15/2018 |
| BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al, 2-18-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim as to 9 patents is granted for failing to allege pre-suit knowledge. The motion to dismiss is granted as to two patents for failing to allege any type of egregious behavior that could support a willfulness claim. The motion is granted as to two other patents because plaintiff simply alleges that defendant should’ve been aware of the patents without alleging any egregious behavior. | 8/21/2018 |
| Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corporation, et. al., 2-07-cv-08108 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, which was supported by substantial evidence, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because every Read factor except for attempts to conceal the infringement weigh in favor of enhancement. The jury award is doubled. | 11/4/2018 |
| EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 5-16-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2019) | Following a jury verdict, plaintiff’s motion for an ongoing royalty is granted because plaintiff’s motion to enhance the jury’s rate due to defendant’s willfulness is denied. There is no evidence that Defendant’s conduct has been so egregious as to justify enhancement. | 1/16/2019 |
| Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc., 8-18-cv-01580 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint alleges that plaintiff provided defendant with technical access to the technology and that defendant copied the technology and included it in its own product without plaintiff’s consent. | 3/5/2019 |
| Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Ready Pac Foods, Inc. et al, 5-18-cv-02436 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint alleges that Defendant has been on notice of plaintiff’s patent since at least a month before this suit was filed. So pre-filing knowledge is sufficiently pled. | 3/18/2019 |
| Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-08906 (C.D. Cal. April 2, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint properly alleges knowledge, infringement, and specific intent to infringe. Defendant’s equitable estoppel argument is not persuasive. | 4/2/2019 |
| EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 5-16-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict is denied. Substantial evidence supports the jury finding that defendant continued to willfully infringe upon notice of the patent. | 5/7/2019 |
| SpeakWare, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 8-18-cv-01293 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to allege egregious conduct. The Complaint merely alleges that defendant had knowledge or willful blindness of the infringement based on the allegations in the indirect infringement claims. | 5/21/2019 |
| VRtoysone, LLC v. Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., 2-19-cv-00742 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted. Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege defendant’s knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct by defendant. Moreover, plaintiff failed to make a direct connection between defendant and a related third party. | 6/27/2019 |
| Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 2-17-cv-04146 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of a genuine dispute of fact as to knowledge. Plaintiff contacted defendant regarding its patent portfolio, and specifically referred to one asserted patent in its notice of infringement letter. | 8/5/2019 |
| Kuen Hwa Traffic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. DNA Motor, Inc., 2-18-cv-05664 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2019) | The court determines following a bench trial that plaintiff failed to show willfulness by the defendant. Plaintiff’s claim is based solely on defendant’s knowledge of the design patent after the cease and desist letter. Moreover, defendant had a good faith belief of no infringement based on its own analysis and its reliance on outside counsel. | 8/20/2019 |
| Top Lighting Corporation v. Linco Inc., 5-15-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) | Counterclaim plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted because of counterclaim defendant’s copying, lack of good faith defense, litigation misconduct, closeness of the case, duration of misconduct, and concealment favor enhancement. The jury award is trebled. | 8/26/2019 |
| Rehrig Pacific Company v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd. et al, 2-19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness and enhancement claims is granted for failing to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff’s allegations that it marked its product and that defendant copied plaintiff’s product does not show knowledge. | 8/30/2019 |
Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the Central District of California post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Action Star Enterprise, Co. Ltd. v. KaiJet Technology International, Limited, et. al., 2-12-cv-08074 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s failure to produce certain videos supporting its infringement contentions in response to discovery requests. | 7/7/2014 |
| Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Superstar International Inc. et al, 2-13-cv-00566 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because plaintiff pled willful infringement and because defendant failed to participate in discovery. | 8/18/2014 |
| Forever Foundations & Frame, LLC et al v. Optional Products, LLC, 8-13-cv-01779 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful. | 12/19/2014 |
| Cambrian Science Corporation v. Cox Communications Inc., et. al., 8-11-cv-01011 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation position after claim construction was unreasonable as to two products; and because plaintiff requested broad and burdensome discovery against a party without planning to use it at trial, using discovery to harass the party into settlement. | 1/6/2015 |
| Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control Inc., 8-12-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because evidence showed plaintiff brought suit for an improper motive, and that plaintiff should’ve known it hadn’t complied with the marking statute; and because of plaintiff’s long delay in bringing the action re: one patent. | 3/10/2015 |
| Dzinesquare, Inc. v. Armano Luxury Alloys, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-01918 (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of invalidity because no reasonable litigant could’ve reasonably expected success on plaintiff’s infringement claim. | 4/1/2015 |
| Aleksandr L Yufa v. TSI Incorporated, et. al., 8-12-cv-01614 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees against pro se plaintiff because plaintiff filed suit without testing the accused products, and because plaintiff continued the suit, relying on conclusory allegations, after evidence that defendant’s product did not infringe. | 8/12/2015 |
| Large Audience Display Systems, LLC v. Tennman Productions, LLC, et. al., 2-11-cv-03398 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s shell corporation was formed to create jurisdiction, and because plaintiff refused to present the USPTO with dispositive prior art in reexamination. | 8/18/2015 |
| Sundesa, LLC v. Giant Sports Products, LLC, 2-15-cv-02245 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant based on the previous finding that defendant acted willfully. | 2/19/2016 |
| HeadBlade, Inc. v. Products Unlimited, LLC, 2-15-cv-02611 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant continued to advertise its alleged infringing products after suit was filed. | 5/5/2016 |
| Oakley Inc v. Moda Collection LLC, 8-16-cv-00160 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because plaintiff alleged that defendant intentionally and willfully infringed its design patents. | 6/9/2016 |
| Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. et al, 2-14-cv-03009 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff prosecuted direct infringement, but did not verify that the accused products had particular required elements. | 6/23/2016 |
| Large Audience Display Systems, LLC v. Tennman Productions, LLC, et. al., 2-11-cv-03398 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s litigation gamesmanship regarding venue, because of plaintiff’s citing to an inadvertently sent privileged protected email, and because of plaintiff’s objectively weak proposed constructions. | 4/10/2017 |
| Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc., 2-16-cv-06535 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s § 101 position was objectively unreasonable in light of Alice and its progeny, and because plaintiff filed hundreds of cases and repeatedly dismissed its own suits to evade a ruling on a the merits | 7/5/2017 |
| Joimax, Inc v. Surgical Orthopedic Implants, Inc. d/b/a MaxSpine, 8-17-cv-00979 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s willful infringement. | 11/7/2017 |
| Sigma Enterprises, LLC v. Alluring Deals LLC d/b/a KTB Cosmetics et al, 8-17-cv-01074 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of the substantial evidence of defendant’s egregious infringement. | 11/15/2017 |
| Drop Stop LLC v. Jian Qing Zhu et al, 2-16-cv-07916 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant failed to obtain of formal opinion of counsel regarding noninfringement, and engaged in misconduct pre-litigation and during litigation. | 1/22/2018 |
| Genes Industry Inc v. Custom Blinds and Components Inc, 8-15-cv-00476 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant failed to supports its invalidity defenses at trial and because the jury found willfulness. | 1/29/2018 |
| Lawrence E Tannas v. Multichip Display Inc et al, 8-15-cv-00282 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because plaintiff prevailed on nearly every substantive issue on summary judgment, and because defendant engaged in litigation misconduct resulting in prolonged and unnecessary litigation, as reflected by the court’s prior orders and statements on the record. | 2/21/2018 |
| 3M Company et al v. Phoenix Automotive Refinishing Co., Ltd. et al, 5-17-cv-00649 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful. | 4/25/2018 |
| DexCom, Inc. v. AgaMatrix, Inc., 2-16-cv-05947 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because plaintiff should’ve known at the time of the claim construction order that its infringement positions were inconsistent with the words of the patent. | 5/9/2018 |
| Mangalindan v. TBL International, Inc. d/b/a Yofit et al, 8-17-cv-01505 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2018 | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful. | 5/22/2018 |
| Spitz Technologies Corporation v. Nobel Biocare USA, LLC et al, 8-17-cv-00660 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because plaintiff’s infringement case became objectively baseless after the claim construction order. | 6/7/2018 |
| Sugarfina, Inc. v. Sweitzer LLC et al, 2-17-cv-07950 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the infringement was willful, and because defendant continued to infringe despite the court’s order. | 7/30/2018 |
| Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health In Motion LLC et al, 2-17-cv-03488 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff raised flawed claim construction and infringement contentions, made multiple settlement offers below the anticipated costs of defense, and delayed during discovery. | 9/10/2018 |
| Munchkin Inc v. Luv N’ Care Ltd et al, 2-13-cv-06787 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees following invalidation in an IPR because plaintiff persisted in litigation despite certain invalidating prior art patents and failed to explore settlement before or after the IPR decision. | 12/27/2018 |
| Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. Body Wise International, Inc., 8-18-cv-02076 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees against defaulting defendant because of the allegations in the complaint and defendant’s failure to defend the lawsuit. | 4/10/2019 |
| Kindred Studio Illustration and Design, LLC d/b/a True Grit Texture Supply v. Electronic Communication Technology, LLC a/k/a Eclipse IP, LLC, 2-18-cv-07661 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2019) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees following a covenant not to sue and a stipulation of dismissal because declaratory defendant’s infringement contentions were unreasonable, and because DJ defendant was an NPE that went after an unsophisticated party to strongarm a quick settlement. | 5/23/2019 |
| Top Lighting Corporation v. Linco Inc., 5-15-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) | Declaratory judgment defendant is entitled to fees because of declaratory plaintiff’s willfulness, its failure to respond to discovery, and its unreasonable damages position. | 8/26/2019 |
| SKC Kolon PI, Inc. v. Kaneka Corporation, 2-16-cv-05948 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2019) | Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees following summary judgment of noninfringement because declaratory defendant maintained infringement allegations without supporting evidence as to some accused products. | 9/6/2019 |
Excluding Unqualified Damages Experts:
Below are issued decisions on damages experts qualifications from the Central District of California between June 13, 2016 and November 7, 2019.
| Case | Result | Notes | Date |
| Broadcom Corporation v. Emulex Corporation, 8-09-cv-01058 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) | Excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant’s damages expert from testifying about noninfringing substitutes is granted because the expert is not qualified to testify as to whether the third party’s product was infringing or not infringing. | 8/10/2011 |
| Kaneka Corporation v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., et. al., 2-11-cv-03397 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2015) | Not excluded | Defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s damages expert regarding Korean markets is denied because the expert will quantify the economic loss allegedly suffered, and is qualified to do so given his 25+ years of experience in the evaluation and quantification of economic damages arising from intellectual property disputes. | 11/5/2015 |
| TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al, 8-14-cv-00341 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017) | Not excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s damages expert regarding the valuation of certain patents is denied because the expert has more than 20 years experience in intellectual property valuation, is the president of his own valuation firm, is the author of an intellectual property text, has published extensively, and holds a bachelor’s degree in computer science as well as an MBA. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s rebuttal expert/in-house counsel as unqualified is denied because the expert’s extensive licensing background is a legitimate basis for expertise; the expert is qualified to testify how licensing negotiation are carried out, including motives and strategies. | 2/2/2017 |
Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:
Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the Central District of California concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.
In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state (Large Audience Display v. Tennman)
District court’s JMOL of nonwillfulness is vacated for relying on Seagate’s objective prong (Alfred E. Mann Foundation v. Cochlear)
A permanent injunction is not overly broad despite that it reaches products that do not necessarily infringe (United Construction v. Tile Tech)
Irreparable harm shown where risk averse customers would perceive that plaintiff no longer had an exclusive license (MACOM Tech. v. Infineon)
Enhancement vacated because district court did not sufficiently consider the closeness of the case (Polara v. Campbell)
Fees for entire suit proper where plaintiff’s misconduct permeated the entire case (Large Audience Display v. Tennman)
Lower court did not err in using aggregate method instead of apportionment to award fees (Drop Stop v. Zhu)
Case is not necessarily exceptional where litigation costs exceed the potential damages (ATEN International v. Uniclass)