Earlier settlement is comparable despite open infringement and validity in the earlier case

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 …

Preliminary injunction upheld because the loss of a potential lifelong customer is irreparable

Metalcraft of Mayville v. Toro was decided on February 16, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The patent relates to a system for ride-on lawnmowers. The district court granted plaintiff Metalcraft a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant Toro from making, using, selling, and offering to sell lawnmowers equipped with …

Attorney fees warranted for litigant’s refusal to produce an issue-dispositive document

National Oilwell Varco v. Omron is a nonprecedential case decided on January 25, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that plaintiff Oilwell lacked standing, and awarded attorney fees to defendant Omron based on the exceptional nature of Oilwell’s litigation conduct. The …

Pre-patent consumer confusion, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill support irreparable harm

Tinnus v. Telebrands was decided on January 24, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Tinnus a preliminary injunction, affirming a Magistrage Judge’s finding that the claims were likely infringed, were not vulnerable on indefiniteness or obviousness grounds, and that Tinnus made a showing …

After frivolous appeal, appellant’s counsel held jointly and severally liable for fees and double costs

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 …

Permanent injunction isn’t too broad despite reaching products that do not necessarily infringe

United Construction v. Tile Tech was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. The patent concerned a support pedestal adapted to support surface tiles to form an elevated building surface. After “a series of delays, missed deadlines, and other procedural missteps by [defendant] Tile Tech,” …

No inequitable conduct because the examiner had available the info from the withheld docs

U.S. Water v. Novozymes was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The patents relate to the production of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from milled grain. The district court held the asserted claims invalid as inherently anticipated, and denied defendant Novozymes’s summary judgment motion as to inequitable conduct. The …

A past dismissal with prejudice does not preclude an injunction on the dismissed conduct

This opinion was superseded.    Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Asetek prevailed at trial, receiving a judgment of infringement and of no invalidity, plus a damages award against defendant CMI of $404,941 on a 14.5% royalty rate. The district …

Jury finding of willfulness doesn’t per se support enhancing damages or awarding attorney fees

Stryker v. Zimmer was decided on September 12, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Michigan. There, a jury found plaintiff-Stryker’s patents valid and infringed, awarded $70 million in lost profits, and found that defendant-Zimmer willfully infringed under the then-controlling Seagate standard. The district court then issued an order rejecting Zimmer’s motion …

Enhancement affirmed because defendant knew of the patents at the time of infringement

Wbip v. Kohler was decided on July 19, 2016 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that defendant Kohler infringed all the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not invalid, and that Kohler’s infringement was willful (under Seagate’s clear and convincing standard). After the verdict, the district …