Supplemental damages and ongoing royalty vacated for relying almost exclusively on expired patent

EcoServices v. Certified Aviation is a nonprecedential case decided on October 8, 2020, on appeal from the Central District of California. Plaintiff EcoServices sued Defendant Aviation for infringement of two patents. One patent expired before trial. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict that Aviation infringed both patents, that the …

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 …

A patent litigation remedies profile of the Central District of California

This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.   Local Patent Rules (Judge Andrew J. Guilford) Local Patent Rules (Judge Otis D. Wright II)   …

Fees warranted because of NPE plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct and to deter future abusive litigation

Blackbird v. Health In Motion was decided on December 16, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. “[S]hortly before discovery was scheduled to end,” defendant Health In Motion filed a motion for summary judgment. After the motion was fully briefed, without notice to Health, plaintiff Blackbird filed a …

Release payment for past infringement of standard essential patents is a jury question

TCL Communication v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was decided on December 5, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that declaratory defendant Ericsson’s proposed offers were not “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND). “Over Ericsson’s repeated assertions of its jury trial right,” …

Case is not necessarily exceptional where litigation costs exceed the potential damages

ATEN International v. Uniclass was decided on August 6, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. The district court granted defendant Uniclass summary judgment on plaintiff ATEN’s lost profits theory of damages. So ATEN “proceeded to trial based on a reasonable royalty theory of damages, under which its …

Lower court did not err in using aggregate method instead of apportionment to award fees

Drop Stop v. Zhu is a nonprecedential case decided on February 8, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the parties reached a settlement stipulating to infringement of some claims, plaintiff Drop Stop moved for attorney fees. The district court granted the motion and awarded $600,000 in fees …

Fees for entire suit proper where plaintiff’s misconduct permeated the entire case

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on August 20, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. 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. On remand …

Enhancement vacated because district court did not sufficiently consider the closeness of the case

Polara v. Campbell was decided on July 10, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The jury entered a verdict that the asserted claims were not invalid and that defendant Campbell willfully infringed the claims. After trial, the district court enhanced damages by 2.5, denied Campbell’s motion for JMOL …

Irreparable harm shown where risk averse customers would perceive that plaintiff no longer had an exclusive license

MACOM Tech. v. Infineon was decided on January 29, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The parties entered into an agreement that allowed plaintiff MACOM and defendant Infineon to share rights to practice licensed patents within a general “Field of Use.” The agreement further defined an “Exclusive Field” …