Munchkin v. Luv N’ Care was decided on June 8, 2020, on appeal from the Central District of California. Plaintiff Munchkin sued Defendant Luv N’ Care for unfair competition, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and patent infringement. Subsequently, Luv N’ Care filed an IPR petition at the PTAB, which was …
Amneal Pharm v. Almirall was decided on June 4, 2020, on appeal from the PTAB. After Amneal filed a petition for an IPR challenging Almirall’s patent, Almirall sued Amneal in the district court on a different patent. The parties engaged in settlement discussions, in which Almirall offered to enter into …
Hologic v. Minerva Surgical was decided on April 22, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. A named inventor of the eventual asserted patents (the ‘183 and the ‘348) assigned his rights to the relevant patent applications to a company that would later be acquired by plaintiff Hologic. Years …
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 …
O.F. Mossberg & Sons v. Timney Triggers was decided on April 13, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff Mossberg brought a suit for patent infringement against defendant Timney. While the case was stayed, the USPTO in an ex parte reexamination “rejected all pending claims over the cited …
While there was no marquee patent remedies decision in 2019, the courts still decided some important issues, especially in the context of reasonable royalties. 1. Expenses under Section 145 does not permit the recovery of USPTO attorney fees Under Section 145 of the Patent Act, when an applicant appeals an adverse …
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 …
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 …
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. …
2018 was a big year for patent remedies, the most important decision being the Supreme Court’s WesternGeco v. ION, which opened the door to foreign damages for patent infringement. 1. A Patentee may recover foreign lost profits for infringement under Section 271(f)(2) Under Section 271(f)(2) of the Patent Act, it …