Injunction denied, despite irreparable harm provision, because Plaintiff is not likely to show breach of contract

Takeda v. Mylan was decided on July 31, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. In 2016, Plaintiff Takeda sued Defendant Mylan for patent infringement. The parties ultimately settled. The license agreement allows Mylan to sell a generic product in the event that a court decision “hold[s] that all …

Stipulated dismissal with prejudice may form basis for attorney fees under Rule 54

Keith Manufacturing v. Butterfield was decided on April 7, 2020, on appeal from the District of Oregon. Plaintiff Keith Manufacturing brought a lawsuit against Defendant and former employee Butterfield after Butterfield filed a patent application. Keith alleged that the patent was based on inventions made during Butterfield’s employment and sought …

Summary judgement of noninfringement vacated because settlement agreement mooted the case

Serta Simmons Bedding v. Casper Sleep was decided on February 13, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. In September 2017, plaintiff Serta filed a patent infringement lawsuit against defendant Casper. While Casper’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement were pending, the parties executed a settlement agreement. …

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 …

If the smallest salable unit has non-infringing features, the patentee must further apportion the royalty

Finjan v. Blue Coat was decided on January 10, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. A jury found defendant Blue Coat liable for infringement of four patents (the ‘633, ‘731, ‘844, and ‘968) owned by plaintiff Finjan, and awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The patents related to internet …

Earlier settlement is comparable despite open infringement and validity in the earlier case

Prism v. Sprint Spectrum was decided on March 6, 2017 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Plaintiff Prism had sued defendant Sprint and AT&T separately. The AT&T suit settled, and the district court here admitted the AT&T settlement agreement into evidence over Sprint’s objections. A jury then found Sprint liable …