This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (N.D. Ill.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.
Below are the patent jury verdicts from the Northern District of Illinois between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $4,414,650, and median time to verdict from complaint is 1579 days.
| Case | Amount | Judge | Verdict Date | Time to Verdict | Technology |
| Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, et. al. | $15,884,106 | Sharon Johnson Coleman | 3/19/2015 | 3499 days | Computers & Communications |
| Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corporation et al | $5,979,616 | Rebecca R. Pallmeyer | 5/12/2017 | 1645 days | Mechanical |
| Rehco, LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd. | $5,385,843 | John Robert Blakey | 12/19/2019 | 2459 days | Chemical, Computers & Communications, Mechanical, Others |
| Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos Corporation d/b/a Schutt Sports | $5,000,000 | Matthew F. Kennelly | 5/21/2019 | 1125 days | Others |
| The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al | $3,829,300 | Harry D. Leinenweber | 8/30/2017 | 446 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical |
| Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. et al | $3,245,213 | Edmond E. Chang | 9/4/2018 | 3380 days | Other |
| Oil-Dri Corporation of America v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company | $3,000,000 | Matthew F. Kennelly | 3/26/2019 | 1512 days | Others |
| Halo Creative & Design Limited et al v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc. et al | $15,775 | Harry D. Leinenweber | 1/29/2018 | 1197 days | Other |
Lycopene is one of the phytonutrients, that is good for curing erection problems due to purchased that purchase cialis poor circulation. If we see international stats, the half of total male population in the world has erectile dysfunction. cialis tablet An expert can analyze the issues and see what http://www.icks.org/data/ijks/1482456658_add_file_1.pdf buy tadalafil online users have to say about various online medicine shops. You can buy Shilajit ES capsule, which offers the same quality and performance without the high price tag. cheap levitra india
Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:
Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the Northern District of Illinois between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.
| Case | Enjoined Product(s) | Patent Title(s) | Irreparable Harm | Date |
| Scholle Corporation v. Rapak LLC, 1-13-cv-03976 (N.D. Ill. March 31, 2014) | Cap assemblies | – Self sealing bag in box cap assembly | Here, Plaintiff has shown that competition with Defendant likely has led to a loss of market share and price erosion. Based on the evidence presented, there are two or three suppliers for the product in the relevant market. Thus, Plaintiff and Defendant are direct competitors. Plaintiff has lost sales to the accused product. And Defendant sells the accused product at a lower price than Plaintiff, which has exerted, and continues to exert, downward pressure on Plaintiff’s price. | 3/31/2014 |
| Tuf-Tite, Inc. v. Federal Package Networks, Inc., 1-14-cv-02060 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2014) | Lip balm applicator | – Stick applicator with incremental dispensing action | According to Plaintiff, it will be irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction because it will suffer from price erosion, loss of market share, lost sales, and loss of goodwill from its customer base. These contentions are supported by a declaration. | 11/21/2014 |
| The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-06097 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016) | Garage door opener products | – Movable barrier operators status condition transception apparatus and method;
– Barrier movement operator battery backup and power equipment battery charging center |
Defendant’s product is a direct competitor to Plaintiff’s product in the relevant market. The evidence further showed that the market is relatively inelastic. While sales data of the accused product were not available, the data did show a marked reduction in Plaintiff’s sales immediately after the product launch. The evidence also suggests that the launch of the accused product] has caused price erosion. While there is no clear evidence that there will be a reduction in Plaintiff’s market share, nevertheless basic economic reasoning dictates that it should be suspected. | 9/15/2016 |
| Ninety7, Inc. v. Shenzhen Haofeng Plastic Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 1-18-cv-04825 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 6, 2018) | Cordless speaker | – Portable auxiliary unit for mobile audio player | Defendant’s continued and unauthorized infringement of Plaintiff’s Patent irreparably harms Plaintiff through diminished goodwill and brand confidence, damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, loss of exclusivity, and loss of future sales. | 9/6/2018 |
| Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc., 1-17-cv-03078 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2019) | Audio conferencing product | – Integrated beamforming microphone array and ceiling or wall tile | Declaratory Defendant’s product directly competes with Declaratory Plaintiff’s in the relevant market. DJ Defendant has lost sales due to DJ Plaintiff’s product. Lost sales in the relevant market are particularly devastating because end users often use the same brand throughout their facilities and because sales tend to be infrequent given the long life-span of the product. DJ Defendant’s loss of market share is the starkest evidence of the harm it has suffered and is likely to continue to suffer. Almost immediately after DJ Plaintiff’s product was released, DJ Defendant’s sales declined. It also remains the case that DJ Defendant refuses to license its technology. | 8/5/2019 |
Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the Northern District of Illinois post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., No. 12-cv-9033, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127627, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) | Motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because there is no evidence that defendant’s conduct was sufficiently egregious | 9/20/2016 |
| Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12-cv-9033, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158435, at *5-8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2016) | Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the court’s earlier summary judgment of no willfulness is denied: defendant’s conduct was not egregious or willful | 11/15/2016 |
| R-Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, No. 11 C 8433, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18968, at *99 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2017) | The court enhances damages because the likelihood of infringement was objectively high and was likely known to the defendant, and because the case is sufficiently egregious. The award is trebled. | 2/10/2017 |
| The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-06097 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2018) | Following a jury trial, defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict. Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted under the Read factors, and the damages award is trebled. | 5/23/2018 |
| Puget BioVentures, LLC v. Biomet Orthopaedics, LLC et al, 3-17-cv-00502 (N.D. Ind. June 11, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff pleaded defendant’s knowledge of the patent and defendant’s deliberate decision not to obtain a license. | 6/11/2018 |
| Puget Bio Ventures, LLC v Biomet Orthopedics LLC et al, 3-10-cv-00465 (N.D. Ind. Jul. 2, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant was repeatedly warned of infringement, yet it carried on with business as usual. | 7/2/2018 |
| Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. et al, 1-09-cv-03339 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 6, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is partially denied because there is testimony evidence that a few months before the lawsuit, defendant knew about the patent and the potentially infringement, and that it continued to sell the accused product anyways. | 7/6/2018 |
| Velocity Patent LLC v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 1-13-cv-08419 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is evidence that defendant continued to infringe after being sued and made no effort to ensure it was not infringing. | 8/7/2018 |
| Halo Creative & Design Limited et al v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc. et al, 1-14-cv-08196 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of the willfulness of defendant’s infringement, its continued infringement, and the multiple misrepresentations on the record. Defendant’s motion to modify the judgment to find no willfulness was denied because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s willfulness finding. The jury award is doubled. | 10/2/2018 |
| Dresser, LLC v. VRG Controls, LLC, 1-18-cv-01957 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant’s CEO is one of the named inventors of the patent, which is more than sufficient at the pleadings where it is not necessary to show egregiousness. | 11/28/2018 |
| Cascades AV LLC v. Evertz Microsystems, Ltd., 1-17-cv-07881 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges knowledge of the patents through a letter sent to defendant. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s enhancement claim is also denied. | 1/11/2018 |
| Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. et al, 1-09-cv-03339 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the jury’s effective rate exceeded plaintiff’s damages request. The jury awarded almost a half-million more than plaintiff asked for. This premium outweighs the slight advantage that the Read factors give to plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. Evidence showed that defendant continued to sell the infringing product even after plaintiff notified defendant of the patent and after the lawsuit was filed. | 9/6/2019 |
Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the Northern District of Illinois post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation et al, 1-10-cv-06763 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of the inequitable conduct finding against plaintiff. | 5/30/2014 |
| Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated v. International Securities Exchange, LLC, 1-07-cv-00623 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2014) | Declaratory judgment plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant should’ve known that it could not prove infringement, and should have “fold[ed] its tent,” instead of wasting the court’s and parties’ time and resources. | 12/10/2014 |
| In Re: People’s United Bank, National Association, 1-12-cv-06286 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff did not join the patent owner to the lawsuit from the start, leading to filed motions that could’ve been avoided. | 10/1/2015 |
| Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corporation et al, 1-15-cv-10746 (N.D. Ill. Jul 22, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because the evidence shows that plaintiff filed the action without adequate investigation, and because plaintiff’s ultimate theory was meritless. | 7/22/2016 |
| R-Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, 1-11-cv-08433 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant willfully violated a permanent injunction, and the evidence did not show that defendant undertook a redesign as it claimed. | 2/10/2017 |
| The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-06097 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because the jury found willful infringement, and because of defendant’s conduct, mainly its efforts to circumvent the preliminary injunction. | 5/23/2018 |
Excluding Unqualified Damages Experts:
Below are issued decisions on damages experts qualifications from the Northern District of Illinois between June 13, 2016 and November 7, 2019.
| Case | Result | Notes | Date |
| Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc., et. al., 1-10-cv-00204 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2013) | Excluded | Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s infringement expert regarding price erosion is granted because although the expert has decades of experience in the relevant industry, the expert does not have any experience in conducting economic analyses and did not perform any economic studies. | 10/15/2013
|
| Robertson Transformer Co. v. General Electric Company, et. al., 1-12-cv-08094 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2016) | Excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant’s damages expert from testifying as unqualified is granted because the expert’s graduate studies did not include coursework in economics or any of its subfields, nor does the expert hold a degree in economics or accounting; the expert’s expertise in Bayesian statistics is not sufficient. | 8/19/2016 |
Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:
Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the Northern District of Illinois concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.
Likely success on the merits not shown where the district court relied on erroneous claim construction (Chamberlain v. Techtronic)
Injunction, enhanced damages, and attorney fees vacated after finding one patent invalid under Section 101 (Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries)