EcoServices v. Certified Aviation is a nonprecedential case decided on October 8, 2020, on appeal from the Central District of California. Plaintiff EcoServices sued Defendant Aviation for infringement of two patents. One patent expired before trial. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict that Aviation infringed both patents, that the …
Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication was decided on August 4, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff IP Bridge argued that the asserted patents are essential to a standard and that Defendant TCL’s accused devices are compatible with the standard. The jury found …
Hologic v. Minerva Surgical was decided on April 22, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. A named inventor of the eventual asserted patents (the ‘183 and the ‘348) assigned his rights to the relevant patent applications to a company that would later be acquired by plaintiff Hologic. Years …
Chrimar Systems v. ALE U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury trial returned a verdict against defendant ALE in a case involving four patents, the district court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff Chrimar damages and post-verdict ongoing royalties. …
SRI International v. Cisco was originally decided on March 20, 2019, and modified on July 12, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the modified opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated the award of attorney fees, which was based in part on the vacated willfulness finding, and remanded for further consideration …
Section 283 of the Patent Act provides that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” There are several types of relief for ongoing infringement that a court can …
This opinion was superseded. SRI International v. Cisco was decided on March 20, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court denied defendant Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility and anticipation. At trial, the jury found willful infringement, and awarded plaintiff SRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty rate …
XY v. Trans Ova Genetics was decided on May 23, 2018 on appeal from the District of Colorado. Plaintiff XY sued defendant Trans Ova for patent infringement and breach of contract. The jury found that Trans Ova breached the contract and willfully infringed XY’s patent, and awarded XY $4,585,000 for the …
Arctic Cat v. Bombadier was decided on December 7, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Before trial, defendant Bombadier unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on several issues, including that plaintiff Artic Cat’s licensee failed to mark its products. The jury found the asserted patents not invalid, found willful infringement by …
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 …