Implied waiver may result where patentee failed to disclose patent application to standard-setting organization

Core Wireless v. Apple was decided on August 16, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Both patents concern technology for wireless communication in a digital network. The jury found that defendant Apple infringed both plaintiff Core Wireless’s asserted claims. The district court then rejected Apple’s argument that one asserted patent was …

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

This opinion was superseded.    Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor was decided on July 3, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The asserted patents related to switching regulators involved in power supply controller chips. A jury found infringement and awarded $139.8 million in reasonable royalties to plaintiff Power Integration based on …

Consumer’s interest in purchasing hypothetical infringing products does not create declaratory jurisdiction

AIDS Healthcare v. Gilead was decided on May 11, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory defendant Gilead has patents or is a licensee of patents on a particular antiviral agent used to treat AIDS. Declaratory plaintiff Healthcare provides medical care to persons afflicted with AIDS. Healthcare filed a declaratory judgment …

Misconduct during prosecution and litigation supports finding of unclean hands for asserted patents

Gilead v. Merck was decided on April 25, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After the jury ruled for Merck and awarded $200 million in damages, the district court held a bench trial on Gilead’s unclean hands defense. The district court ruled for Gilead, “finding both pre-litigation business misconduct and litigation …

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 …

No Walker Process violation because there was no showing of intent to deceive the PTO

Alfred T. Giuliano v. SanDisk is a non-precedential case decided on July 27, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after Plaintiffs brought a Walker Process antitrust class action against SanDisk, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SanDisk because the record did not show evidence sufficient to raise …

Permanent injunction reaching a party not found liable is vacated

Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on April 3, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In an earlier December 6, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit maintained the permanent injunction during the remand, and Chief Judge Prost dissented because she would have vacated the injunction. In the April 3, 2017 decision, the …

Damages remanded for district court to determine §289’s “article of manufacture” test

Apple v. Samsung was decided on February 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million — the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The …

A past dismissal with prejudice does not preclude an injunction on the dismissed conduct

This opinion was superseded.    Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Asetek prevailed at trial, receiving a judgment of infringement and of no invalidity, plus a damages award against defendant CMI of $404,941 on a 14.5% royalty rate. The district …

Supreme Court: § 289’s “article of manufacture” covers a component of the end product

Samsung v. Apple was decided by the Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million, the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed …