Continuation of a continuation is impliedly licensed under the grandparent patent’s license agreement

Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T was decided on February 6, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. Plaintiff Cheetah asserted that Defendant AT&T’s fiber equipment and services infringed its ‘836 patent. Ciena moved to intervene in the lawsuit because it manufactures and supplies certain components for AT&T’s fiber …

Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 7 and 8 for a reasonable royalty

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …

Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factor 6 for a reasonable royalty: convoyed sales

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2019

While there was no marquee patent remedies decision in 2019, the courts still decided some important issues, especially in the context of reasonable royalties. 1. Expenses under Section 145 does not permit the recovery of USPTO attorney fees Under Section 145 of the Patent Act, when an applicant appeals an adverse …

Balance of the harms disfavors injunction where movant does not show irreparable harm

LEGO v. ZURU is a nonprecedential case decided on January 15, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff LEGO filed a complaint against defendant ZURU for copyright, trademark, and patent infringement and obtained a temporary restraining order. After a hearing, the court granted LEGO’s motion for a preliminary …

Denial of summary judgment of invalidity does not conclusively show objective reasonableness regarding fees

Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez was decided on January 13, 2020, on appeal from the Western District of Washington. Plaintiff Eko filed a declaratory judgment and an infringement action against defendant ARM. On summary judgment, the district court granted Eko declaratory judgment of noninfringement but denied the motion as …

Plaintiff is not entitled to jury award after invalidity at the PTAB

Personal Audio v. CBS was decided on January 10, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found for plaintiff Personal Audio on infringement and invalidity as to three asserted claims, and awarded $1,300,000 as damages against defendant CBS. When the PTAB issued a final written decision …

Federal Circuit on Section 286 and the statute of limitations for patent infringement damages

Section 286 of the Patent Act “sets forth a limitation on damages.” Adams & Associates v. Dell. Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for …

Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 4 and 5 for a reasonable royalty

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …

Federal Circuit on applying Georgia-Pacific factors 2 and 3 for a reasonable royalty

Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …