WesternGeco v. ION was decided on remand from the Supreme Court on January 11, 2019 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. At trial, the jury found the asserted claims not invalid and awarded plaintiff WesternGeco a reasonable royalty of $12.5 million and lost profits of $93.4 million. After many rounds of …
This opinion was superseded. Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case decided on November 30, 2018 on appeal from the District of Kansas. At trial the district court permitted Sprint to introduce evidence of a jury verdict in a related case by Sprint against another defendant. The jury found that …
Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor was decided on November 19, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory plaintiff Enplas filed an declaratory action against declaratory defendant Seoul Semiconductor on two patents. Seoul Semiconductor counterclaimed, asserting infringement and seeking damages. On summary judgment, the district court held that no reasonable juror could …
Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor was originally decided on July 3, 2018, and modified on September 20, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In the modified opinion, language requiring that the patentee, to apply to entire market value rule, present evidence that the other features “are not relevant to consumer choice” and “did not …
This opinion was superseded. Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor was decided on July 3, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The asserted patents related to switching regulators involved in power supply controller chips. A jury found infringement and awarded $139.8 million in reasonable royalties to plaintiff Power Integration based on …
Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. All four asserted patents were standard essential. Before trial the district court denied ALE’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chrimar’s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty. A jury found …
This post deals with recovering total profits under 35 U.S.C. §289 for design patent infringement. Under Section 289, a design patent infringer is “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit,” that is, all the profit made from the manufacture or sale “of the article of manufacture …
Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton was decided on January 12, 2018 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. The invention related to a lawn mower having an improved device for directing airflow and grass clippings during operation. The district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted claim 1 was not invalid …
Finjan v. Blue Coat was decided on January 10, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. A jury found defendant Blue Coat liable for infringement of four patents (the ‘633, ‘731, ‘844, and ‘968) owned by plaintiff Finjan, and awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The patents related to internet …
Rembrandt v. Samsung was decided on April 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The patents related to Bluetooth technology. There, the jury found that defendant Samsung infringed plaintiff Rembrandt’s patents, and awarded $15.7 million in damages. After trial, the district court denied Samsung’s motion for JMOL on obviousness …