C. R. Bard v. AngioDynamics was decided on November 10, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. Partway through the jury trial, the district court granted Defendant AngioDynamics JMOL that Plaintiff Bard’s asserted claims were not infringed, were not willfully infringed, and were invalid as directed to ineligible subject …
Omega Patents v. CalAmp was decided on April 8, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of Florida. After the jury awarded plaintiff Omega approximately $2.98 million in compensatory damages, the district court trebled damages for willful infringement, awarded attorney’s fees to Omega, awarded damages for sales made subsequent to the jury verdict, …
Ultratec v. Sorenson is a nonprecedential case decided on May 18, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury awarded plaintiff Ultratec a “total royalty payment of approximately $5,443,485.” The district court concluded on JMOL that there was no willfulness because plaintiff could not meet the objective prong of Seagate, …
After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under Section 284 of the Patent Act. This post deals primarily with the role of the judge and the jury in the willfulness and enhancement determination. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that …
Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. Pre-trial, the district court granted defendant Kaz summary judgment of no willful infringement because its invalidity contentions were objectively reasonable. At trial, the jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid, …
Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton was decided on January 12, 2018 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. The invention related to a lawn mower having an improved device for directing airflow and grass clippings during operation. The district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted claim 1 was not invalid …
After a finding of willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. This post deals primarily with finding willfulness, and not enhancing damages. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. In June 2016, Halo v. Pulse rejected the Seagate test and established new …
Alfred E. Mann Foundation v. Cochlear was decided on November 17, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, the district court entered judgment finding claims of one asserted patent infringed and claims of another patent invalid for indefiniteness. The jury found that defendant Cochlear’s infringement was willful under …
WesternGeco v. ION was decided on September 21, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court in light of Halo v. Pulse. At the district court, the jury found infringement and no invalidity as to all asserted claims, and awarded Plaintiff-WesternGeco lost profits …
Halo v. Pulse was decided by the Federal Circuit on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district …