Liability as to one claim does not support general damages, willfulness finding, enhancement, or attorney fees

Omega Patents v. CalAmp was decided on April 8, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of Florida. After the jury awarded plaintiff Omega approximately $2.98 million in compensatory damages, the district court trebled damages for willful infringement, awarded attorney’s fees to Omega, awarded damages for sales made subsequent to the jury verdict, …

Willfulness and enhancement vacated, but exceptionality finding affirmed

This opinion was superseded.  SRI International v. Cisco was decided on March 20, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court denied defendant Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility and anticipation. At trial, the jury found willful infringement, and awarded plaintiff SRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty rate …

Lump-sum royalty covering products not accused to be infringing is vacated

Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor was decided on November 19, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory plaintiff Enplas filed an declaratory action against declaratory defendant Seoul Semiconductor on two patents. Seoul Semiconductor counterclaimed, asserting infringement and seeking damages. On summary judgment, the district court held that no reasonable juror could …

It was error to award all requested fees without causal connection between the misconduct and the award

Rembrandt v. Comcast was decided on July 27, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After several years of litigation by plaintiff Rembrandt “against dozens of cable companies, cable equipment manufacturers, and broadcast networks,” the district court “entered final judgment against Rembrandt as to all claims.” After an adverse claim construction, …

Denial of permanent injunction vacated because willingness to license does not necessarily mean no irreparable harm – modified opinion –

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on July 9, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit granted petition for rehearing and reissued the opinion, modifying the opinion released on May 1, 2018. The principal change relates to the evidence relied on by Texas Advanced in its …

Party waived right to challenge finding of no willfulness despite change in law

Ultratec v. Sorenson is a nonprecedential case decided on May 18, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury awarded plaintiff Ultratec a “total royalty payment of approximately $5,443,485.” The district court concluded on JMOL that there was no willfulness because plaintiff could not meet the objective prong of Seagate, …

Expert’s royalty methodology properly apportioned the value of nonpatented features and of standardization

Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. All four asserted patents were standard essential. Before trial the district court denied ALE’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chrimar’s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty. A jury found …

Denial of permanent injunction vacated because willingness to license does not necessarily mean no irreparable harm

This opinion was superseded.   Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on May 1, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Texas Advanced sued defendant Renesas for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Before trial, the district court granted Renesas’s summary judgment motion …

Jury royalty awarding plaintiff 71% of infringer’s per-unit profit is supported by the evidence

Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. Pre-trial, the district court granted defendant Kaz summary judgment of no willful infringement because its invalidity contentions were objectively reasonable. At trial, the jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid, …

Enhanced damages vacated because district court did not particularly explain the basis for trebling the award

WCM v. IPS is a nonprecedential opinion decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiff WCM sued defendant IPS in the District of Colorado for two patents which had issued within the prior month. WCM then voluntarily dismissed the Colorado suit and refiled the same complaint in …