Pro se plaintiff held liable for attorney fees and expert costs

Huang v. Huawei Technologies is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After serving invalidity contentions, defendant Huawei served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter on pro se plaintiff Huang, asserting that Huang’s “claims were baseless and that a pre-suit investigation would have revealed …

Expert’s royalty methodology properly apportioned the value of nonpatented features and of standardization

Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.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 …

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

This opinion was superseded.   Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on May 1, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Texas Advanced sued defendant Renesas for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Before trial, the district court granted Renesas’s summary judgment motion …

Patent owner’s lost profits, willfulness finding, and enhanced damages affirmed

Georgetown Rail v. Holland was decided on August 1, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that defendant Holland willfully infringed plaintiff Georgetown Rail’s patent and award lost profits. The district court then denied Holland’s motion for JMOL, and enhanced damages based on the finding of willfulness. …

For multi-component products, causal nexus only requires some connection between the feature and product demand

Genband v. Metaswitch was decided on July 10, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after a jury found that Defendant Metaswitch infringed claims of Plaintiff Genband’s patents, and that the claims were not invalid, Genband moved for a permanent injunction. The district court denied the request because “Genband …

Case exceptional where plaintiff litigated after a conclusive Markman order, and had nuisance settlements

AdjustaCam v. Newegg was decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, Plaintiff AdjustaCam sued Defendant Newegg and dozens of other defendants for patent infringement, voluntarily dismissing most defendants early in the litigation. Though AdjustaCam continued to litigate against Newegg through a Markman order and extended …

Case not exceptional where accused products were different than those earlier held non-infringing

Parallel Networks v. Kayak is a non-precedential case decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after granting Defendants Kayak’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, the district court denied their motion for attorney fees, finding nothing exceptional about either Plaintiff Parallel Networks’ infringement theory or …

Fees warranted where party showed pattern of suing and settling for sums below costs of defense

Rothschild v. Guardian was decided on June 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Rothschild’s voluntary motion to dismiss. The court then denied defendants’ cross motion for attorney fees because Rothschild voluntarily withdrew its complaint within Rule 11’s safe harbor period (motions for …

Causal nexus found where Defendant couldn’t achieve ANDA product without infringing

Mylan v. Aurobindo was decided on May 19, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted co-Plaintiff Mylan’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the compound and process patents, finding that Defendant Aurobindo likely infringed the patents under the doctrine of equivalents, and that Arubindo …

No irreparable harm where the parties don’t meaningfully compete, and where plaintiff licensed to others

Nichia v. Everlight was decided on April 28, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The patents-in-suit disclosed designs and methods of manufacturing LED devices. After a bench trial, the district court found defendant Everlight infringed plaintiff Nichia’s patents, and that the patents were not invalid. The court then denied …