Jury award in design-patent case vacated in light of Apple v. Samsung

Nordock v. Systems is a nonprecedential case decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and awarded Nordock $46,825 as a reasonable royalty, indicating that Systems’ profits were $0. The …

No further lost-profits apportionment needed when applying the Panduit factors

Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA was decided on March 16, 2017 on appeal from the District of Oregon. The patents concerned simulation/emulation technology. After plaintiff Mentor sued defendant EVE for patent infringement, EVE sued Mentor for a declaratory judgment that a non-asserted patent was invalid. Mentor then counterclaimed for willful infringement of …

Damages remanded for district court to determine §289’s “article of manufacture” test

Apple v. Samsung was decided on February 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million — the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The …

Supreme Court: § 289’s “article of manufacture” covers a component of the end product

Samsung v. Apple was decided by the Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million, the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed …

For standard-essential patent damages, courts must discount the value of standardization

Scientific v. Cisco was decided on December 3, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the patent-in-suit concerned wireless local area network technology, and was included in the 802.11a “Wi-Fi” standard (first published in 1999).  Around 2003, plaintiff Scientific developed a form license offer (“the Rate Card”), which it …

If both § 289 and § 284 damages are sought, the jury must consider the infringer’s total profits

Nordock v. Systems was decided on September 29, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and that the patent was not invalid. Nordock’s damages expert testified that System’s net profit for the sale of the infringing items was …

Expert methodology is admissible despite being neither published nor peer reviewed

Summit 6 v. Samsung was decided on September 21, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The patent relates to the processing and uploading of digital photos. The jury found plaintiff Summit’s patent not invalid and infringed, and awarded Summit $15 million in damages. Summit settled with another defendant, RIM, before trial. …