Denial of preliminary injunction and dismissal with prejudice for defective contentions affirmed

Xiaohua Huang v. MediaTek U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on June 3, 2020 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After denying Plaintiff Huang’s motion for sanctions, a TRO, and a preliminary injunction, the district court struck Huang’s fourth set of infringement contentions for failing to comply the …

No irreparable harm where plaintiff licenses the patent and defendant competes with the licensees

Verinata Health v. Ariosa Diagnostics is a nonprecendential case decided on April 24, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of California. The asserted patents concern DNA sequence testing. After trial, the jury found two patents owned by Plaintiffs Verinata and Illumina valid and infringed, and awarded “approximately $27 million …

Preliminary injunction inappropriate where defendant raised a substantial question of validity under anticipation

OrthoAccel Technologies v. Propel Orthodontics is a nonprecedential case decided on September 23, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The district court denied plaintiff OrthoAccel’s motion for a preliminary injunction because defendant Propel raised a substantial question of validity for the patent under anticipation. OrthoAccel appealed. The Federal …

Declaratory jurisdiction existed where patentee sued the declaratory plaintiff’s customer

UCP v. Balsam is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 and unsealed on October 7, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Balsam sued Frontgate (a third party) alleging infringement of certain patents. After the claim construction order, the parties settled, whereby Frontgate agreed to stop purchasing the relevant product …

Attorney fees based on litigation misconduct reversed because movant is no longer a prevailing party

UCP v. Balsam Brands is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The district court granted declaratory judgment plaintiff UCP’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The district court then granted-in-part and denied-in-part UCP’s motion for attorney fees against declaratory defendant Balsam, holding that “UCP …

Dismissal under Section 101 and subsequent grant of attorney fees are vacated

CellSpin Soft v. Fitbit was decided on June 25, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff CellSpin filed more than a dozen cases alleging infringement of certain patents. On a motion to dismiss, the district court found that none of the asserted claims were patent eligible. The district court found the …

A patent litigation remedies profile of the Northern District of California

This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.). 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 …

Lost profits and permanent injunction found appropriate in two-supplier market

TEK Global v. Sealant Systems was decided on March 29, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The patent related to tire repair kits. At trial, the jury found some claims not invalid, and awarded plaintiff TEK $2,525,482 in lost profits and $255,388 in the form of a reasonable royalty. After trial, …

Lump-sum royalty covering products not accused to be infringing is vacated

Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor was decided on November 19, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory plaintiff Enplas filed an declaratory action against declaratory defendant Seoul Semiconductor on two patents. Seoul Semiconductor counterclaimed, asserting infringement and seeking damages. On summary judgment, the district court held that no reasonable juror could …

Entire market value rule inappropriate where accused product has valuable non-patented features – modified opinion –

Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor was originally decided on July 3, 2018, and modified on September 20, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In the modified opinion, language requiring that the patentee, to apply to entire market value rule, present evidence that the other features “are not relevant to consumer choice” and “did not …