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Nordock v. Systems is a nonprecedential case decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on remand from the Supreme Court.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 …

In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, after the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendants …

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 …

Question of subjective willful misconduct is for the jury

Innovention v. MGA is a nonprecedential case decided on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Louisiana. There, the district court, after a jury trial finding willfulness, awarded enhanced damages (on Seagate’s clear and convincing standard for willfulness) and attorney fees for defendant MGA’s infringement. The Federal Circuit …

No enhancement because the lodestar method is presumptively reasonable for attorney fees

Lumen View Tech. v. Findthebest.com was decided on January 22, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held that plaintiff-Lumen View’s patent was directed to an abstract idea, and therefore was invalid under § 101. Defendant Findthebest then moved for an award of attorney fees under § …

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 …

Exceptionality finding upheld because the district court provided five independent bases

Integrated  v. Rudolph is a nonprecedential case decided on October 21, 2015, up on appeal for the second time from the District of Arizona. There, the jury returned a verdict of infringement and willfulness. At trial, it was discovered that defendant Rudolph continued to contest infringement even though its CEO personally thought that …

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 …

Attorney fees grant vacated where underlying noninfringement decision was also vacated

TNS Media Research v. TiVo is a nonprecedential case decided on September 16, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, after plaintiff TNS filed suit against defendant TiVo seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, TiVo counterclaimed for infringement of the patent. The district court granted TNS’s motion as to noninfringement and …

Letter informing of patent ownership without charging infringement does not provide actual notice under section 287

Amsted v. Buckeye Steel Castings was decided on April 18, 1994 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). Plaintiff Amsted brought suit against defendant Buckeye on February 25, 1991. In 1986, Amsted sent Buckeye and other …