This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (D. Mass.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.
Below are the patent jury verdicts from the District of Massachusetts between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $10,006,150, and median time to verdict from complaint is 1342 days.
| Case | Amount | Judge | Verdict Date | Time to Verdict | Technology |
| Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al. | $13,665,000 | Patti B. Saris | 11/19/2015 | 1128 days | Electrical & Electronic |
| Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et. al. v. Zoll Medical Corporation | $10,400,000 | Nathaniel M. Gorton | 8/3/2017 | 2603 days | Drugs & Medical, Electrical & Electronic |
| Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. et al v. Perrigo Company et al | $10,210,071 | Rya W. Zobel | 12/14/2016 | 1254 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Exergen Corporation v. Kaz USA, Inc. | $9,802,228 | Richard G. Stearns | 1/22/2016 | 1040 days | Drugs & Medical, Electrical & Electronic |
| Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et. al. v. Zoll Medical Corporation | $3,300,000 | Nathaniel M. Gorton | 8/3/2017 | 2603 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al v. Rolling Optics AB | $119,186 | Leo T. Sorokin | 5/9/2018 | 1430 days | Chemical, Mechanical |
hop over to here levitra no prescription Run the long filament completely through the vent from the outside casing (where the battery door is located) to the opening near the sound opening. Make sure you take it https://unica-web.com/archive/wmmc/wmmctotal.htm purchase cheap levitra as and when directed by your doctor. EDTA chelation treatment online generic cialis composes of an exceptionally powerful strategy for enhancing the fitness of the veins, taking out calcium, and improving firmness, which results in expanding blood circulation. Olive oil:- Trans fat and saturated fat constrict the generic viagra overnight arteries, but monounsaturated fat available in olive oil aid keep them working smoothly.
Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:
Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the District of Massachusetts between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.
| Case | Enjoined Product(s) | Patent Title(s) | Irreparable Harm | Date |
| Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-11681 (D. Mass. Oct. 28, 2011) | Anticoagulant generic drug | – Analysis of sulfated polysaccharides;
– Evaluating mixtures of low molecular weight heparins by chain profiles or chain mapping |
In view of plaintiffs’ showing of infringement and validity, the Court applies the presumption of irreparable harm. Notwithstanding, plaintiffs have shown that the marketing of defendants’ product will cause them immediate and long-term irreparable harm. That harm would likely involve price erosion, lost market share, loss of market capitalization, reputational injury and threats to both the funding of ongoing research development and the hiring and retention of critical scientific talent. | 10/28/2011 |
| Genzyme Corporation v. Seikagaku Corporation, et. al., 1-11-cv-10636 (D. Mass. Dec. 30, 2011) | Knee pain relief treatment | – Regimens for intra-articular viscosupplementation | — | 12/30/2011 |
Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the District of Massachusetts post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Simplivity Corp. v. Springpath, Inc., No. 4:15-13345-TSH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155017, at *57-62 (D. Mass. July 15, 2016) | Defendant post-complaint conduct, if true, supports a willfulness claim | 7/15/2016 |
| Trs. of Bos. Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12-11935-PBS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96045, at *5 (D. Mass. July 22, 2016) | No enhancement because defendant’s conduct wasn’t sufficiently egregious | 7/22/2016 |
| Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc. v. Perrigo Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11640-RWZ (D. Mass. Apr. 24, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is denied because defendant’s conduct was not egregious, and the jury award was at the high end of the damages sought. | 4/24/2017 |
| Word to Info, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. 1-17-cv-10054 (D. Mass. May 10, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleged knowledge of the patents: defendant cited to a plaintiff patent in patent prosecution. | 5/10/2017 |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., Civil Action No. 10-11041-NMG (D. Mass. Jun. 26, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement is granted because the defendant at the time had “reasonable arguments as to why its conduct was noninfringing.” | 6/26/2017 |
| Lexington Luminance LLC v. TCL Multimedia Holdings, Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-11458 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff is not required to allege more than knowledge of the patent and of infringement. | 8/30/2017 |
| Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. et al v. Perrigo Company et al, 1-13-cv-11640 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2017) | Defendant’s renewed JMOL of no willfulness is granted because no reasonable jury could have found direct infringement. | 11/17/2017 |
| Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al v. Rolling Optics AB, 1-14-cv-12428 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted following a jury verdict of infringement because defendant’s copying, lack of a good faith defense, duration of misconduct, and lack of remedial action favored an enhancement. Defendant “willfully sent infringing products into the U.S. market without a good faith belief in non-infringement or invalidity, and with a willful disregard for” plaintiff’s patent rights. The jury award is trebled. | 8/23/2018 |
| SiOnyx, LLC, et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., et al, 1-15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2018) | Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted as to 2 defendants because the evidence doesn’t show that they knew or should’ve known of the asserted patents. The motion is denied as to a third defendant because there’s a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant knew of the asserted patents, and whether it knowingly or recklessly infringed the patents. | 8/30/2018 |
| Nike, Inc v. Puma North America, Inc., 1-18-cv-10876 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff asserts that it notified defendant of the infringement on multiple occasions, and defendant continued marketing various accused products. | 10/10/2018 |
| SiOnyx, LLC, et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., et al, 1-15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. July 25, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the jury awarded plaintiff $0 in patent infringement damages, which cannot be trebled. Moreover, enhancement doesn’t necessarily flow from finding willfulness. | 7/25/2019 |
| SiOnyx, LLC, et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., et al, 1-15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. July 25, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict. The evidence showed that defendants were monitoring plaintiffs’ related antecedent patents and applications. | 7/25/2019 |
Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the District of Massachusetts post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 12-cv-11935-PBS (D. Mass. July 22, 2016) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s misrepresentation of certain data and because of discovery misconduct. | 7/22/2016 |
| Sophos Incorporated v. RPost Holdings, Inc. et al, 1-13-cv-12856 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s litigation misconduct during discovery and at summary judgment. | 2/2/2018 |
| DataTern, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-11970 (D. Mass. June 5, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff attempted to manipulate the random assignment of judges, and because plaintiff’s case became objectively baseless after the claim construction ruling. | 6/5/2018 |
| Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al., 1-12-cv-11935 (D. Mass. July 18, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation tactics were unreasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel sent threatening emails to defendant’ counsel during and after trial. | 7/18/2019 |
| Sanderson-MacLeod, Inc. v. Hobbs Medical, Inc., 3-19-cv-30013 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff prepared a facially insufficient complaint based on outdated law and did not amend the complaint between defendant’s motion to dismiss and the date of the hearing on the motion. | 11/21/2019 |
Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:
Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the District of Massachusetts concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.
Lost profits available despite that the patentee’s product was twice as expensive as the infringer’s (Akamai v. Limelight)
Enhancement affirmed because defendant knew of the patents at the time of infringement. (Wbip v. Kohler)
Federal Circuit lists non-exclusive factors to consider when assessing exceptionality under § 285 (University of Utah v. Max Planck)
Jury royalty awarding plaintiff 71% of infringer’s per-unit profit is supported by the evidence (Exergen v. Kaz)