Patent jury awards in 2020: Patent jury awards total $2.6 billion despite COVID-19 pandemic

This post attempts to collect and present patent jury verdicts rendered in 2020. Only jury awards are included (no bench awards, arbitration awards, settlements, etc.).   Figure 1: The median patent jury verdict in 2020 was $85,230,000. The low was $3,071,838 and the high was $837,801,178. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, …

Use of total sales as royalty base is proper and apportionment analysis unnecessary under comparable license theory

Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline was decided on November 19, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff Vectura prevailed on the issues of validity, infringement, and willful infringement, and the “jury awarded Vectura a royalty of 3% on a royalty base of $2.99 billion in sales for the …

Summary judgement of equitable estoppel inappropriate where there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the evidence

Ferring B.V. v. Allergan was decided on November 10, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. In September 2002, Ferring filed a PCT Application for its drug formulation, naming 6 inventors, including Fein, a consultant for Ferring. Fein “conceived the sublingual route of administration.” Two months later, …

Invalidity opinion of counsel is relevant but not dispositive in willfulness inquiry

C. R. Bard v. AngioDynamics was decided on November 10, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. Partway through the jury trial, the district court granted Defendant AngioDynamics JMOL that Plaintiff Bard’s asserted claims were not infringed, were not willfully infringed, and were invalid as directed to ineligible subject …

Supplemental damages and ongoing royalty vacated for relying almost exclusively on expired patent

EcoServices v. Certified Aviation is a nonprecedential case decided on October 8, 2020, on appeal from the Central District of California. Plaintiff EcoServices sued Defendant Aviation for infringement of two patents. One patent expired before trial. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict that Aviation infringed both patents, that the …

Lower court decision to increase prejudgment interest award for post-suit time period is affirmed

Exmark Manufacturing v. Briggs & Stratton is a nonprecedential case decided on October 6, 2020, on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Following grant of summary judgment of infringement and no invalidity, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found that Defendant Briggs willfully infringed Plaintiff Exmark’s …

Availability of infringing generic alternatives is not a proper consideration for pharmaceutical lost profits

GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva was decided on October 2, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Defendant Teva induced infringement of Plaintiff GSK’s patent, awarded GSK “$234,110,000 based on lost profits, plus royalty payments of $1,400,000,” and found that the infringement was willful. The district court …

Case not exceptional where objectionable conduct was previously considered in granting sanctions motion

Khan v. Hemosphere is a nonprecendential case decided on August 13, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. Pro se plaintiffs Khans “alleged that the defendant corporations, hospitals, and physicians directly and indirectly infringed” their patent. The Khans sued “three hundred defendants.” The district court dismissed without prejudice …

Ongoing FRAND royalty applied to unaccused and unadjudicated products is affirmed

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication was decided on August 4, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff IP Bridge argued that the asserted patents are essential to a standard and that Defendant TCL’s accused devices are compatible with the standard. The jury found …

Jury royalty affirmed but injunction partially vacated because Defendant depends entirely on sales of enjoined products

Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics was decided on August 3, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Plaintiff Bio-Rad’s three asserted patents were valid and willfully infringed, and “awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716.” Post-trial, the district court denied Defendant 10X’s motion for  JMOL, …