Enhancement affirmed because defendant knew of the patents at the time of infringement

Wbip v. Kohler was decided on July 19, 2016 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that defendant Kohler infringed all the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not invalid, and that Kohler’s infringement was willful (under Seagate’s clear and convincing standard). After the verdict, the district …

2016 Mid-year review of remedies decisions

In this post, I will give a mid-year review of the patent remedies cases. The relevant time period is January 1st to June 30th, 2016. The graph below shows how many times each decision has been cited according to Google scholar. The graph is current as to November 29, 2016. …

Supreme Court relaxes willfulness standard: objective recklessness no longer required

Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics was decided by the Supreme Court on June 13, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district court declined to enhance …

Treble attorney fees for defending against a fraudulently obtained patent

TransWeb v. 3M was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the District of New Jersey.  Prior than one year before the priority date of the asserted patents, defendant TransWeb’s founder handed out samples (that were arguably prior art) at an industry exposition. The jury found plaintiff 3M’s patents invalid …

No enhancement because the lodestar method is presumptively reasonable for attorney fees

Lumen View Tech. v. Findthebest.com was decided on January 22, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held that plaintiff-Lumen View’s patent was directed to an abstract idea, and therefore was invalid under § 101. Defendant Findthebest then moved for an award of attorney fees under § …