Supreme Court holds that laches can’t bar damages for a suit brought within the limitations period

SCA Hygiene v. First Quality was decided by the Supreme Court on March 21, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Kentucky. There, the district court granted defendant First Quality’s summary judgment motion of laches and equitable estoppel. A Federal Circuit panel affirmed as to laches, but reversed as to …

Jury award in design-patent case vacated in light of Apple v. Samsung

Nordock v. Systems is a nonprecedential case decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and awarded Nordock $46,825 as a reasonable royalty, indicating that Systems’ profits were $0. The …

No further lost-profits apportionment needed when applying the Panduit factors

Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA was decided on March 16, 2017 on appeal from the District of Oregon. The patents concerned simulation/emulation technology. After plaintiff Mentor sued defendant EVE for patent infringement, EVE sued Mentor for a declaratory judgment that a non-asserted patent was invalid. Mentor then counterclaimed for willful infringement of …

Likely success not shown where the district court relied on erroneous claim construction

Chamberlain v. Techtronic is a nonprecedential case decided on January 25, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. There, the district court granted plaintiff Chamberlain a preliminary injunction, finding that Chamberlain had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim. Techtronic appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the grant …

District court’s JMOL of nonwillfulness is vacated for relying on Seagate’s objective prong

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 …

In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, after the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendants …

Objective reasonableness isn’t dispositive in a willfulness inquiry, but is still relevant to enhancement

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 …

Jury finding of willfulness doesn’t per se support enhancing damages or awarding attorney fees

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 …

After the jury finds subjective willfulness, the judge decides whether to enhance damages

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 …

Question of subjective willful misconduct is for the jury

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 …