This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.
Below are the patent jury verdicts from the Northern District of California between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $7,300,000, and median time to verdict from complaint is 1028 days.
| Case | Amount | Judge | Verdict Date | Time to Verdict | Technology |
| Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et. al. | $538,641,656 | Lucy H. Koh | 5/24/2018 | 2596 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic |
| Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al | $200,000,000 | Beth Labson Freeman | 3/24/2016 | 937 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et. al. | $139,800,000 | Maxine M. Chesney | 12/17/2015 | 2234 days | Electrical & Electronic |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. | $39,528,487 | Beth Labson Freeman | 8/4/2015 | 706 days | Computers & Communications |
| Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. | $15,730,062 | Susan Illston | 1/25/2018 | 1371 days | Chemical, Drugs & Medical |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. | $15,000,000 | William H. Orrick, III | 9/21/2016 | 922 days | Computers & Communications |
| Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., | $12,325,000 | Edward J. Davila | 4/3/2015 | 1523 days | Computers & Communications |
| Verinata Health, Inc., et. al. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. | $10,998,185 | Susan Illston | 1/25/2018 | 1918 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Fujifilm Corporation v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. et al | $10,240,000 | William H. Orrick, III | 5/4/2015 | 1028 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic |
| Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. Apple Inc. | $7,300,000 | Nathanael M. Cousins | 12/15/2016 | 408 days | Computers & Communications |
| Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc. et al | $6,666,484 | Edward M. Chen | 2/25/2019 | 613 days | Electrical & Electronic |
| Radware, LTD. et al v. F5 Networks, Inc. | $6,400,000 | Ronald M. Whyte | 3/15/2016 | 1049 days | Computers & Communications |
| Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Woss Enterprises, LLC | $5,941,156 | Beth Labson Freeman | 3/22/2017 | 1073 days | Mechanical |
| Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc. et al | $4,918,661 | James Donato | 2/13/2015 | 477 days | Computers & Communications |
| Enplas Display Device Corporation et al v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. | $4,070,000 | Nathanael M. Cousins | 3/24/2016 | 877 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical |
| Accessories Marketing, Inc. v. Tek Corporation | $2,780,870 | Vince Chhabria | 3/17/2017 | 2219 days | Mechanical |
| Johnstech International Corp. v. JF Technology Berhad et al | $636,807 | James Donato | 9/27/2016 | 830 days | Electrical & Electronic |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems LLC | $490,000 | Beth Labson Freeman | 11/20/2017 | 1224 days | Computers & Communications |
| Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Corporation et al | $278,000 | Edward J. Davila | 5/11/2018 | 875 days | Computers & Communications |
They also stated that as many as 30 million men in the US. sildenafil generic canada Obesity may kill your sex drive and can cause cheapest generic cialis erection problems. Let her know what you are going to the proper training you need! InLife Training Albuterol is also commonly called Salbutamol is used for the relief measures from erectile dysfunction & they lead for the appropriate production of cGMP enzymes which improvise the flow of the blood vessels into the penile organ & therein cause successful functioning of the male organ using the herbal oil cialis cost 20mg for 5. Causes of Erectile Dysfunction There are various ED causes which includes aging, high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, depression, medication side effects, nerve or spinal cord damage, alcoholism or other medications abuse, pelvic surgery which include radical prostatectomy, penile/perineal/pelvic trauma including pelvic fracture, pelvic radiation, Peyronie’s disease, and low testosterone levels. generic viagra samples
Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:
Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the Northern District of California between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.
| Case | Enjoined Product(s) | Patent(s) Title | Irreparable Harm | Date |
| Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et. al., 5-11-cv-01846 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2012) | Tablet computer | – Electronic device (design patent) | Plaintiff has shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm from the sales of Defendant’s products because Plaintiff and Defendant were direct competitors, and together the two companies held a relatively large market share, with few other competitors in the relevant market. | 6/26/2012 |
| LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, et. al., 3-11-cv-04494 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2013) | Blood glucose test strips | – Measurement of substances in liquids | Plaintiff asserts that the introduction of Defendant’s products to the market poses an existential challenge to the viability of Plaintiff’s business, and moreover, that Defendant will not have the resources to pay any damages award ultimately incurred. Defendant intends to sell its product at one-half the price of Plaintiff’s. Defendant’s pricing structure would cause price erosion because Plaintiff would likely need to cut the price of its product in order to compete, making it extremely difficult to raise prices back to the earlier level. Plaintiff further contends that the sale of Defendant’s product stands to jeopardize Plaintiff’s market share and its position as market leader, poses a threat to Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation, and could lead to a reduction in Plaintiff’s research and development budget. | 3/19/2013 |
| BlackBerry Limited v. Typo Products LLC et al, 3-14-cv-00023 (N.D. Cal. March 28, 2014) | Smartphone keyboard product | – Hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs;
– Handheld electronic device (design patent) |
Defendant’s product directly targets the segment of customers in the market in which Plaintiff competes. Indeed, To the extent that Defendant succeeds in allowing users to purchase its product, Defendant likely does so at the expense of Plaintiff. Given the nature of the relevant market, the monetary harm to Plaintiff cannot be adequately calculated and the loss of goodwill and loss of business opportunities is likely irreparable. | 3/28/2014 |
| Illumina, Inc. et al v. QIAGEN, NV et al, 3-16-cv-02788 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2016) | DNA sequencing products | – Labelled nucleotides | The relevant market is expected to grow substantially in the near future, and Defendant has a foothold in that market due to its other product lines. Defendant seeks to usurp Plaintiff’s position in the relevant market with pirated technology. Moreover, potential customers cannot easily be recovered because the products are purchased infrequently and irregularly. At this crucial inflection point in the development of the relevant market, Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if Defendant were allowed to capture and define the market with pirated technology alongside its preexisting relationships and disruptive business model. | 9/9/2016 |
Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the Northern District of California post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 4-16-cv-01729 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because allegations about knowledge of another patent do not show pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit. | 6/17/2016 |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93267, at *47-53 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) | Enhanced damages are not warranted because plaintiff hasn’t engaged in egregious misconduct as described by Halo | 7/18/2016 |
| Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., No. 13-cv-05038 NC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105762, at *25-26 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) | Although defendant willfully infringed, its conduct was not egregious, so enhancement isn’t warranted | 8/10/2016 |
| Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112504, at *10-28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) | JMOL of nonwillfulness is granted because there isn’t sufficient evidence of subjective willfulness | 8/22/2016 |
| Nanosys, Inc. et al v. QD Vision, Inc., 4-16-cv-01957 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege more than mere knowledge of the patents, but in amending the complaint, plaintiff need not allege specific names of individuals. | 9/16/2016 |
| Nanosys, Inc. v. QD Vision, Inc., No. 16-cv-01957-YGR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017) | Motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges defendant used his specific knowledge of the patent to develop and market an infringing product | 1/4/2017 |
| Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5561, at *10-15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) | Though willfulness is established, no enhancement because no egregious misconduct | 1/13/2017 |
| Personalweb Techs. LLC v. Int’l Bus. MacHs. Corp., Case No. 16-cv-01266-EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant subjectively believed it was infringing a valid patent. | 5/9/2017 |
| Novitaz, Inc. v. Inmarket Media, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-06795-EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 26, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff didn’t sufficiently allege knowledge and intent. | 5/26/2017 |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge or egregious behavior. | 6/7/2017 |
| Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al. 5-12-cv-00630 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2017) | The court finds substantial evidence supports to jury finding of willfulness, and enhances damages because of defendant’s copying, attempt to conceal the misconduct, and the availability of non-infringing alternatives. The jury award is enhanced by 1.3. | 6/23/2017 |
| Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3-16-cv-03582 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s enhancement claim is denied because plaintiff alleges defendant was aware of the patents and continued selling the accused products. | 9/9/2017 |
| XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 3-17-cv-03848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff needs to do more than allege knowledge and continued infringement; it must allege egregious misconduct. | 10/11/2017 |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5-17-cv-00072 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleges pre-suit knowledge and egregious behavior. | 2/6/2018 |
| Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., 3-17-cv-05659 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff doesn’t sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge or that defendant ignored known infringement. | 2/14/2018 |
| Rearden LLC et al v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-04187 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges continued infringement in knowing or willfully blind violation of plaintiff’s IP rights. | 3/6/2018 |
| Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-05806 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge and egregious misconduct. | 3/16/2018 |
| Avocent Huntsville, LLC v. ZPE Systems, Inc., 3-17-cv-04319 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pleads egregiousness, highlighting the alleged actions of individuals. | 3/21/2018 |
| Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Corporation et al, 5-15-cv-05836 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) | Following jury finding of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of defendant’s efforts to copy plaintiff and defendant’s awareness that it could be infringing. The jury award is doubled. | 5/8/2018 |
| Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., 5-17-cv-04467 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims is denied because the complaint alleges that defendant knew in detail about how it infringed the patents and continued with disingenuous licensing discussions. | 5/16/2018 |
| Software Research, Inc. v. Dynatrace LLC et al, 3-18-cv-00232 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff fails to plausibly allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. | 7/3/2018 |
| Johnstech International Corp. v. JF Technology Berhad et al, 3-14-cv-02864 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of the evidence of culpable conduct presented at trial and defendant’s deliberate and conscious decision to continue selling the product after the verdict. The jury award is enhanced by 1.25. | 8/6/2018 |
| Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al, 3-18-cv-01942 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s willfulness counterclaim is granted because the counterclaim is conclusory and lacks the egregiousness required. | 8/6/2018 |
| Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Bridgelux, Inc., 4-17-cv-03363 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge. | 9/14/2018 |
| NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5-18-cv-02352 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Knowledge of the patent application alone is not sufficient. | 9/18/2018 |
| Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5-17-cv-06457 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges more than simply that defendant knew about the patents and that defendant infringed them. It’s plausible to conclude that defendant continued to sell an infringing product despite being aware that it was infringing the patents. | 10/1/2018 |
| Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Woss Enterprises, LLC, 5-14-cv-01725 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because defendant’s copying, lack of a good faith defense, lack of closeness of the case, and duration of misconduct favored enhancement. The jury award is doubled. | 11/20/2018 |
| Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 3-18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff alleges that defendant knew about the patent when plaintiff proposed a purchase or licensing deal to defendant for it. Defendant proceeded with alleged infringing activity after that. | 3/8/2019 |
| Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, 4-16-cv-07160 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) | Counterclaim defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no enhancement is denied because of a disputed material fact of willfulness. The reasonableness of counterclaim defendant’s non-infringement positions does not preclude a finding of willfulness. Counterclaim defendant knew of the patents and was aware of the initial patent applications, and evidence shows that it unsuccessfully tried to license the patents. | 3/26/2019 |
| Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Google LLC, 4-18-cv-06137 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to allege egregious conduct. The complaint only shows that defendant failed to properly investigate whether it infringed. Plaintiff’s pre-suit letter asking for a business discussion is not sufficient. | 4/2/2019 |
| Power Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corporation et al, 5-16-cv-06371 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019) | Counterclaim defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted for lack of pre-suit notice. Counterclaim plaintiff fails to submit any admissible evidence showing pre-suit notice of the alleged infringement. | 8/22/2019 |
| UPF Innovations, LLC v. Intrinsic ID, Inc., 3-19-cv-02711 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff alleges that it sent defendant a letter informing it of the infringement and that defendant continued to infringe after receiving that letter. | 9/17/2019 |
Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the Northern District of California post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation, 3-10-cv-02066 (N.D. Cal. Aug 12, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff asserted baseless infringement claims, had an inadequate presuit investigation, and attempted to argue different positions in court and at the USPTO. | 8/12/2014 |
| Yufa v. TSI Incorporated, 4-09-cv-01315 (N.D. Cal. Aug 14, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because pro se plaintiff continued litigation, relying solely on conclusory allegations of infringement, in light of the substantial and uncontroverted evidence that the accused product didn’t infringe. | 8/14/2014 |
| IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Voxernet LLC, 5-13-cv-01708 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff failed to develop evidence supporting its literal infringement and DOE arguments, and persisted through claim construction and summary judgment; because plaintiff didn’t show it performed a presuit investigation; and because plaintiff filed dozens of suits but wasn’t willing to invest resources to prove infringement. | 11/6/2014 |
| Logic Devices Incorporated v. Apple, Inc, 3-13-cv-02943 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff misrepresented information, asserted validity positions unsupported by the record, and took zero depositions and little discovery. | 12/4/2014 |
| Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et. al., 4-12-cv-01971 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees following a jury trial because plaintiff failed to produce material documents during discovery, and because plaintiff didn’t alert defendant as to its inventor’s change of position as to inventorship at trial. | 3/9/2015 |
| Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et. al., 4-12-cv-01971 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees for the litigation misconduct of two of plaintiff’s fact witnesses. | 5/1/2015 |
| Alzheimer’s Institute of America v. Elan Corporation PLC, et. al., 3-10-cv-00482 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because a court in a related case found, in a reasoned opinion, that the defendant was entitled to fees. | 6/5/2015 |
| Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc., 3-14-cv-01315 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s proposed claim construction and infringement theory were objectively baseless. | 9/10/2015 |
| Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al, 5-13-cv-04057 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees after a finding of unclean hands against declaratory defendant. | 8/11/2016 |
| Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. et al, 4-14-cv-03640 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement theory was meritless, and because the ITC had previously issued an opinion finding non-infringement. | 1/26/2017 |
| Max Sound Corporation et al v. Google Inc. et al, 5-14-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s position that it had standing to assert the patent was exceptionally weak, and because plaintiff brought suit without performing sufficient due diligence as to whether it had standing. | 10/11/2017 |
| govino, LLC v. WhitePoles LLC d/b/a Vintout et al, 4-16-cv-06981 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s willful infringement and failure to participate. | 11/3/2017 |
| Lyda v. CBS Interactive, Inc., 4-16-cv-06592 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s lack of pre-suit diligence that would have shown that plaintiff’s indirect infringement claim was barred by a prior litigation. | 1/24/2018 |
| Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc., 3-15-cv-02177 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s failure to recognize that its own prior art invalidated the patent in suit was grossly negligent. | 3/14/2018 |
| UCP International Co., Ltd. et al v. Balsam Brands Inc. et al, 3-16-cv-07255 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2018) | Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because declaratory defendant acted in an unreasonable manner in hiring certain counsel and seeking recusal. | 6/12/2018 |
| Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 4-17-cv-05928 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff filed its complaint in the face of significant post-Alice precedent. | 7/6/2018 |
| Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 5-15-cv-01238 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees after summary judgment of non-infringement because of plaintiff’s shoddy pre-suit investigation, its continued aggressive prosecution of the case after the Court’s priority date determination, and its undisclosed change in its infringement theory after the ruling on the first summary judgment motion. | 8/13/2018 |
| Finisar Corporation v. Gigalight (USA) Corp. et al, 3-18-cv-01077 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant ignored plaintiff’s infringement claims and continued selling the accused product even after the entry of default, because of defendant’s failure to participate in the lawsuit, and because of defendant’s attempts to avoid liability through deception. | 11/15/2018 |
| Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Woss Enterprises, LLC, 5-14-cv-01725 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant filed numerous duplicative motions, attempting to relitigate several issues. | 11/20/2018 |
| Robern, Inc. v. Shine Bathrooms, Inc., 3-16-cv-00133 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because most of the factors relevant to enhanced damages, including those related to willfulness, weighed heavily against defendant. | 1/28/2019 |
| Big Baboon, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al, 4-17-cv-02082 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees following summary judgment of invaldity because defendant provided plaintiff with documents showing invalidity before the suit was filed, and plaintiff nonetheless took untenable positions, requiring defendant to waste resources. Moreover plaintiff filed serial lawsuits on the same patent, each lawsuit ending with the asserted claims rendered invalid. | 9/9/2019 |
| Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 3-16-cv-03463 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees following summary judgment of noninfringement because plaintiff pursued an objectively baseless infringement theory by attempting to take different positions than those made to preserve validity at the Federal Circuit. | 11/20/2019 |
| Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Aeon Labs LLC, 3-18-cv-01847 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2019) | Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because of defendant’s willful infringement and deliberate behavior in failing to appear in this action. | 12/2/2019 |
Excluding Unqualified Damages Experts:
Below are issued decisions on damages experts qualifications from the Northern District of California between June 13, 2016 and November 7, 2019.
| Case | Result | Notes | Date |
| Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 3-10-cv-03561 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011) | Not excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of defendant’s damages experts reports on noninfringing alternatives as unqualified is denied because although the experts were economists with no technical expertise, they properly relied on technical experts and other available witnesses and evidence. | 11/28/2011 |
| Plantronics, Inc. v. ALIPH, INC. et al, 3-09-cv-01714 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014) | Excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s damages expert regarding non-infringing substitute as unqualified is granted because the expert is an economist, not a technical expert and thus cannot opine that the third party technology was an acceptable non-infringing substitute. | 1/10/2014 |
| Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc. et al, 3-13-cv-04910 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) | Not excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the opinions of defendant’s damages and technical experts regarding noninfringing substitutes as unqualified is rejected because the technical expert properly opined that the alternatives would result in performance that was imperceptible to the end user. | 1/29/2015 |
| Good Technology Corporation et al v. MobileIron, Inc., 5-12-cv-05826 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2015) | Excluded | Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s technical expert regarding noninfringing substitutes is granted because although the expert is more than qualified technically, experience with the technology does not give an individual expertise in consumer demand related to those non-infringing alternatives. | 7/5/2015 |
| Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-03597 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) | Excluded | Defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert opinion on how the patented features helped defendant meet an energy compliance standard as unqualified is granted. The expert is not an expert in the particular energy compliance and would not be able to offer a reliable or helpful opinion on the impact of the patent technology on defendant’s ability to comply with the standard. | 12/21/2018 |
Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:
Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the Northern District of California concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.
Irreparable harm’s causal nexus shown where users preferred the patented features over alternatives (Apple Inc. v. Samsung)
No abuse of discretion because the district court gave reasons for the denial of attorney fees (Site Update v. CBS)
A past dismissal with prejudice does not preclude a claim for an injunction on the dismissed conduct (Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA)
Damages remanded for the district court to determine § 289’s “article of manufacture” test (Apple v. Samsung)
Permanent injunction reaching a party not found liable is vacated (Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA)
No Walker Process violation because there was no showing of intent to deceive the PTO (Alfred T. Guliano v. SanDisk)
If the smallest salable unit has non-infringing features, the patentee must further apportion the royalty (Finjan v. Blue Coat )
Misconduct during prosecution and litigation supports finding of unclean hands for asserted patents (Gilead v. Merck)
Consumer’s interest in purchasing hypothetical infringing products does not create declaratory jurisdiction (AIDS Healthcare v. Gilead)
Entire market value rule inappropriate where accused product has valuable non-patented features (Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor)
Implied waiver may result where patentee failed to disclose patent application to standard-setting organization (Core Wireless v. Apple)
Entire market value rule inappropriate where accused product has valuable non-patented features – modified opinion – (Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor)
Lump-sum royalty covering products not accused to be infringing is vacated (Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor)
Lost profits and permanent injunction found appropriate in two-supplier market (TEK Global v. Sealant Systems)
Dismissal under Section 101 and subsequent grant of attorney fees are vacated (CellSpin Soft v. Fitbit)
Attorney fees based on litigation misconduct reversed because movant is no longer a prevailing party (UCP v. Balsam Brands)
Declaratory jurisdiction existed where patentee sued the declaratory plaintiff’s customer (UCP v. Balsam Brands)
Preliminary injunction inappropriate where defendant raised a substantial question of validity under anticipation (OrthoAccel Technologies v. Propel Orthodontics)