Judgment vacated and “pending” case remanded for dismissal after unpatentability at the PTAB

Chrimar Systems v. ALE U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury trial returned a verdict against defendant ALE in a case involving four patents, the district court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff Chrimar damages and post-verdict ongoing royalties. …

Injunction, enhanced damages, and attorney fees vacated after finding one patent invalid under Section 101

Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries was decided on August 21, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. After the jury found plaintiff Chamberlain’s patents infringed and not invalid, the district court the district court granted an injunction, enhanced damages and attorney fees. The district court denied defendant Techtronic’s motion for JMOL …

Liability reversed, mooting issues of damages, willfulness, and attorney fees

Cobalt Boats v. Brunswick is a nonprecedential case decided on May 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. At trial, the jury defendant Brunswick willfully infringed, leading to a royalty award of $2,690,000. After trial, the district court enhanced the damages by a factor of 1.5 and awarded damages …

Case exceptional where Plaintiff did not perform a simple test of the publicly available accused products

ThermoLife v. GNC was decided on May 1, 2019 on appeal from the Southern District of California. Plaintiff ThermoLife brought suit against Defendant GNC, and other defendants, for patent infringement. This was one of 81 infringement lawsuits the exclusive licensee filed. The patents relate to “methods and compositions involving the amino …

Federal Circuit on excluding or vacating lost profit patent infringement damages

35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that “the court shall award [the patent owner] damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” “A patent owner, having prevailed on liability, may receive a reasonable royalty or lost …

Attorney fees reversed because plaintiff was no longer the prevailing party

Imperium v. Samsung is a nonprecedential case decided on January 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury verdict against defendant Samsung, the district court concluded that plaintiff Imperium was entitled to attorney fees as a prevailing party. Samsung appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the attorney fees …

Preliminary injunction vacated due to erroneous construction of asserted claims

Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s is a nonprecedential case decided on November 20, 2018 on appeal from the District of New Jersey. In the first ANDA case, plaintiff Indivior sued defendant Dr. Reddy’s, alleging infringement. The district court found that Dr. Reddy’s ANDA did not infringe the asserted patent. After the judgment …

Entire market value rule inappropriate where accused product has valuable non-patented features – modified opinion –

Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor was originally decided on July 3, 2018, and modified on September 20, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In the modified opinion, language requiring that the patentee, to apply to entire market value rule, present evidence that the other features “are not relevant to consumer choice” and “did not …

Fees for entire suit proper where plaintiff’s misconduct permeated the entire case

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on August 20, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On remand …

Implied waiver may result where patentee failed to disclose patent application to standard-setting organization

Core Wireless v. Apple was decided on August 16, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Both patents concern technology for wireless communication in a digital network. The jury found that defendant Apple infringed both plaintiff Core Wireless’s asserted claims. The district court then rejected Apple’s argument that one asserted patent was …