Plaintiff cannot recover pre-suit damages because of unmarked licensee products

Packet Intelligence v. NetScout was decided on July 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Packet Intelligence sued Defendant NetScout on two method-claims patents and one apparatus-claims patent. The jury found all claims willfully infringed, rejected NetScout’s invalidity defenses under § 102, awarded $3.5 million in …

Denial of summary judgment on patent eligibility reversed and jury award vacated

Ericsson v TCL Communication Technology was decided on April 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court denied defendant TCL’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff Ericsson’s patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, the jury found the …

Release payment for past infringement of standard essential patents is a jury question

TCL Communication v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was decided on December 5, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that declaratory defendant Ericsson’s proposed offers were not “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND). “Over Ericsson’s repeated assertions of its jury trial right,” …

Damages remanded for potential new trial based on appellate finding of reduced liability

VirnetX v. Apple is a nonprecendential case decided on November 22, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff VirnetX on invalidity, determining that defendant Apple was precluded from pressing its proposed invalidity challenges because of previous litigation between the parties. The …

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UCP v. Balsam Brands is a nonprecedential case decided on September 19, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California.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 …

Damages available for products in amended complaint that relate back to the originally accused products

Anza Tech. v. Mushkin was decided on August 16, 2019 on appeal from the District of Colorado. Plaintiff Anza filed this action in March 2017 against Defendant Mushkin in the Eastern District of California. In September 2017, Anza filed its first amended complaint, which joined Avant as a co-defendant. The …

Liability reversed, mooting issues of damages, willfulness, and attorney fees

Cobalt Boats v. Brunswick is a nonprecedential case decided on May 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. At trial, the jury defendant Brunswick willfully infringed, leading to a royalty award of $2,690,000. After trial, the district court enhanced the damages by a factor of 1.5 and awarded damages …

Attorney fees reversed because plaintiff was no longer the prevailing party

Imperium v. Samsung is a nonprecedential case decided on January 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury verdict against defendant Samsung, the district court concluded that plaintiff Imperium was entitled to attorney fees as a prevailing party. Samsung appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the attorney fees …

Equitable estoppel does not apply to pre-reexamination conduct of substantively modified reexamination claims

John Bean v. Morris & Associates was decided on April 19, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. In 2002, after plaintiff John Bean had contacted defendant Morris’ customers alleging infringement, Morris sent John Bean a letter notifying John Bean that its patent was invalid based on multiple prior …

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 …