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 …
After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. After this showing of objective recklessness, the …
Walker v. Health International was decided on January 6, 2017 on appeal from the District of Colorado. There, the district court awarded defendant Health attorney fees and costs for plaintiff Walker’s vexatious actions in continuing to litigate after the parties settled all claims. Walker appealed. Health claimed the appeal was frivolous, and …
Link to article on Law360. 2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …
Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, after the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendants …
Because of the spate of recent Federal Circuit cases on the attorney-fees standard, I will write a post on the current state of the law of exceptionality under § 285. Supreme Court Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney …
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. …
Mankes v. Vivid Seats was decided on April 22, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina. There, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, finding no direct infringement. The district court then denied Vivid Seats request for attorney fees, finding the case not exceptional. …
Lismont v. Alexander Binzel was decided on February 16, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the district court granted summary judgment for Alexander Binzel, concluding that Lismont’s inventorship claim, which he filed in the US (in 2012) ten years after the patent issued, was barred by laches. Throughout …
Site Update v. CBS is a nonprecedential case decided on February 1, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after plaintiff Site Update and defendant Newegg agreed to dismiss the claims between them, the district court, applying Octane Fitness, denied Newegg’s request for attorney’s fees under § 285. Newegg appealed. The …