Xiaohua Huang v. MediaTek U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on June 3, 2020 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After denying Plaintiff Huang’s motion for sanctions, a TRO, and a preliminary injunction, the district court struck Huang’s fourth set of infringement contentions for failing to comply the …
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating was decided on May 13, 2020, on appeal from the District of Minnesota. The district court granted Plaintiff Schwendimann motion for summary judgment of proper standing. Following a jury trial, a judgment of willful infringement was entered against Defendant Arkwright and the jury awarded Schwendimann …
Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network was decided on April 21, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After plaintiff Dragon sued defendant DISH for patent infringement, Dish filed a petition seeking inter partes review of the asserted patent. Following a claim construction hearing at the district court, the …
Keith Manufacturing v. Butterfield was decided on April 7, 2020, on appeal from the District of Oregon. Plaintiff Keith Manufacturing brought a lawsuit against Defendant and former employee Butterfield after Butterfield filed a patent application. Keith alleged that the patent was based on inventions made during Butterfield’s employment and sought …
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 …
In Philippi-Hagenbuch v. Western Technology Service International, the Central District of Illinois made mixed findings as to whether patent infringement notice letters sent by Plaintiff’s counsel were sufficient under 35 U.S.C. § 287. The found that that the 2004 letter was sufficient to provide actual notice for damages for patent …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …