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 …
Personal Audio v. CBS was decided on January 10, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found for plaintiff Personal Audio on infringement and invalidity as to three asserted claims, and awarded $1,300,000 as damages against defendant CBS. When the PTAB issued a final written decision …
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 …
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 …
Intellectual Ventures I v. Trend Micro was decided on December 19, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In a related trial by plaintiff Intellectual Ventures against another defendant on the same patents, the jury found infringement of some claims and noninfringement of others. During that trial Intellectual Ventures’ …
Blackbird v. Health In Motion was decided on December 16, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. “[S]hortly before discovery was scheduled to end,” defendant Health In Motion filed a motion for summary judgment. After the motion was fully briefed, without notice to Health, plaintiff Blackbird filed a …
Peter v. NantKwest was decided by the Supreme Court on December 11, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. The USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the …
VirnetX v. Apple is a nonprecendential case decided on November 22, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff VirnetX on invalidity, determining that defendant Apple was precluded from pressing its proposed invalidity challenges because of previous litigation between the parties. The …
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. …