Plaintiff cannot recover pre-suit damages because of unmarked licensee products

Packet Intelligence v. NetScout was decided on July 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Packet Intelligence sued Defendant NetScout on two method-claims patents and one apparatus-claims patent. The jury found all claims willfully infringed, rejected NetScout’s invalidity defenses under § 102, awarded $3.5 million in …

Denial of summary judgment on patent eligibility reversed and jury award vacated

Ericsson v TCL Communication Technology was decided on April 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court denied defendant TCL’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff Ericsson’s patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, the jury found the …

Plaintiff is not entitled to jury award after invalidity at the PTAB

Personal Audio v. CBS was decided on January 10, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found for plaintiff Personal Audio on infringement and invalidity as to three asserted claims, and awarded $1,300,000 as damages against defendant CBS. When the PTAB issued a final written decision …

Damages remanded for potential new trial based on appellate finding of reduced liability

VirnetX v. Apple is a nonprecendential case decided on November 22, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff VirnetX on invalidity, determining that defendant Apple was precluded from pressing its proposed invalidity challenges because of previous litigation between the parties. The …

Judgment vacated and “pending” case remanded for dismissal after unpatentability at the PTAB

Chrimar Systems v. ALE U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury trial returned a verdict against defendant ALE in a case involving four patents, the district court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff Chrimar damages and post-verdict ongoing royalties. …

Royalty affirmed where expert started with a third party settlement and increased the value by 20%

Elbit Systems v. Hughes Network was decided on June 25, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found that defendant Hughes infringed, and awarded plaintiff Elbit  $21,075,750 in reasonable royalty damages. The district court then denied Hughes post-trial motions for JMOL for non-infringement and for a new trial …

A patent litigation remedies profile of the Eastern District of Texas

This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.   Local Patent Rules   Patent Jury Verdicts: Below are the patent jury verdicts from the Eastern …

Attorney fees reversed because plaintiff was no longer the prevailing party

Imperium v. Samsung is a nonprecedential case decided on January 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury verdict against defendant Samsung, the district court concluded that plaintiff Imperium was entitled to attorney fees as a prevailing party. Samsung appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the attorney fees …

Plaintiff did not intend to deceive the PTO in misdiscribing a figure

Barry v. Medtronic was decided on January 24, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found for plaintiff Barry and awarded $15,095,970 for domestic infringement of one patent and $2,625,210 for domestic infringement of another patent. After trial, the district court denied defendant Medtronic’s challenges regarding induced infringement, …

Denial of permanent injunction vacated because willingness to license does not necessarily mean no irreparable harm – modified opinion –

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on July 9, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit granted petition for rehearing and reissued the opinion, modifying the opinion released on May 1, 2018. The principal change relates to the evidence relied on by Texas Advanced in its …