MACOM Tech. v. Infineon was decided on January 29, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The parties entered into an agreement that allowed plaintiff MACOM and defendant Infineon to share rights to practice licensed patents within a general “Field of Use.” The agreement further defined an “Exclusive Field” …
Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton was decided on January 12, 2018 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. The invention related to a lawn mower having an improved device for directing airflow and grass clippings during operation. The district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted claim 1 was not invalid …
Finjan v. Blue Coat was decided on January 10, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. A jury found defendant Blue Coat liable for infringement of four patents (the ‘633, ‘731, ‘844, and ‘968) owned by plaintiff Finjan, and awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The patents related to internet …
Arctic Cat v. Bombadier was decided on December 7, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Before trial, defendant Bombadier unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on several issues, including that plaintiff Artic Cat’s licensee failed to mark its products. The jury found the asserted patents not invalid, found willful infringement by …
Industrial Models v. SNF is a nonprecedential case decided on November 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. This suit relates to Industrial Models’ decision to enter the market for fiberglass utility bodies for use in trucks. In February 2013, plaintiff SNF sent defendant Industrial Models a cease-and-desist letter indicating that …
Mylan v. Aurobindo was decided on May 19, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted co-Plaintiff Mylan’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the compound and process patents, finding that Defendant Aurobindo likely infringed the patents under the doctrine of equivalents, and that Arubindo …
Rembrandt v. Samsung was decided on April 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The patents related to Bluetooth technology. There, the jury found that defendant Samsung infringed plaintiff Rembrandt’s patents, and awarded $15.7 million in damages. After trial, the district court denied Samsung’s motion for JMOL on obviousness …
Gravelle v. Kaba is a nonprecedential case decided on April 12, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina . There, defendant Kaba marked its key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for two features—although no patent application for those features was ever filed. Plaintiff Gravelle filed suit pro se, …
Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on April 3, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In an earlier December 6, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit maintained the permanent injunction during the remand, and Chief Judge Prost dissented because she would have vacated the injunction. In the April 3, 2017 decision, the …
Prism v. Sprint Spectrum was decided on March 6, 2017 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Plaintiff Prism had sued defendant Sprint and AT&T separately. The AT&T suit settled, and the district court here admitted the AT&T settlement agreement into evidence over Sprint’s objections. A jury then found Sprint liable …