WCM v. IPS is a nonprecedential opinion decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiff WCM sued defendant IPS in the District of Colorado for two patents which had issued within the prior month. WCM then voluntarily dismissed the Colorado suit and refiled the same complaint in …
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 …
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 …
Presidio v. American Technical Ceramics was decided on November 21, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of California. The invention concerned capacitors for storing and releasing energy. The district court granted defendant ATC’s motion for summary judgment on absolute intervening rights. The jury then returned a verdict of direct and induced infringement, …
Georgetown Rail v. Holland was decided on August 1, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that defendant Holland willfully infringed plaintiff Georgetown Rail’s patent and award lost profits. The district court then denied Holland’s motion for JMOL, and enhanced damages based on the finding of willfulness. …
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 …
After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. After this showing of objective recklessness, the …
Stryker v. Zimmer was decided on September 12, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Michigan. There, a jury found plaintiff-Stryker’s patents valid and infringed, awarded $70 million in lost profits, and found that defendant-Zimmer willfully infringed under the then-controlling Seagate standard. The district court then issued an order rejecting Zimmer’s motion …
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 …
Innovention v. MGA is a nonprecedential case decided on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Louisiana. There, the district court, after a jury trial finding willfulness, awarded enhanced damages (on Seagate’s clear and convincing standard for willfulness) and attorney fees for defendant MGA’s infringement. The Federal Circuit …