Use of total sales as royalty base is proper and apportionment analysis unnecessary under comparable license theory

Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline was decided on November 19, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff Vectura prevailed on the issues of validity, infringement, and willful infringement, and the “jury awarded Vectura a royalty of 3% on a royalty base of $2.99 billion in sales for the …

Lower court decision to increase prejudgment interest award for post-suit time period is affirmed

Exmark Manufacturing v. Briggs & Stratton is a nonprecedential case decided on October 6, 2020, on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Following grant of summary judgment of infringement and no invalidity, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found that Defendant Briggs willfully infringed Plaintiff Exmark’s …

Case not exceptional where objectionable conduct was previously considered in granting sanctions motion

Khan v. Hemosphere is a nonprecendential case decided on August 13, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. Pro se plaintiffs Khans “alleged that the defendant corporations, hospitals, and physicians directly and indirectly infringed” their patent. The Khans sued “three hundred defendants.” The district court dismissed without prejudice …

Ongoing FRAND royalty applied to unaccused and unadjudicated products is affirmed

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication was decided on August 4, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff IP Bridge argued that the asserted patents are essential to a standard and that Defendant TCL’s accused devices are compatible with the standard. The jury found …

Jury royalty affirmed but injunction partially vacated because Defendant depends entirely on sales of enjoined products

Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics was decided on August 3, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Plaintiff Bio-Rad’s three asserted patents were valid and willfully infringed, and “awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716.” Post-trial, the district court denied Defendant 10X’s motion for  JMOL, …

Injunction denied, despite irreparable harm provision, because Plaintiff is not likely to show breach of contract

Takeda v. Mylan was decided on July 31, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. In 2016, Plaintiff Takeda sued Defendant Mylan for patent infringement. The parties ultimately settled. The license agreement allows Mylan to sell a generic product in the event that a court decision “hold[s] that all …

Plaintiff cannot recover pre-suit damages because of unmarked licensee products

Packet Intelligence v. NetScout was decided on July 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Packet Intelligence sued Defendant NetScout on two method-claims patents and one apparatus-claims patent. The jury found all claims willfully infringed, rejected NetScout’s invalidity defenses under § 102, awarded $3.5 million in …

Failure to appeal laches dismissal supports denial of relief from judgment despite change in law

Medinol v. Cordis is a nonprecedential case decided on June, 12, 2020, on appeal from the Southern District of New York. After dismissing Plaintiff Medinol’s patent infringement claim as barred by laches, the district court denied Medinol Rule 60(b)(6) relief from the judgment. Medinol did not appeal the original judgment …

Fees reversed for failure to show facts of Plaintiff’s unreasonable positions at the PTAB and district court

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 …

No appellate jurisdiction for non-final judgments of lack of notice under Section 287

Iron Oak Techs. v. Microsoft is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. In 2016 and 2017, Iron Oak sued various electronics manufacturers. Because those lawsuits implicated Microsoft’s products, Declaratory Plaintiff Microsoft sued Iron Oak “seeking a declaratory judgment action that …