A patent litigation remedies profile of the Eastern District of Texas – Federal Circuit on Damages and other Remedies

This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.

Local Patent Rules

Patent Jury Verdicts:

Below are the patent jury verdicts from the Eastern District of Texas between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $9,865,524, and median time to verdict from complaint is 707 days.

Case	Amount	Judge	Verdict Date	Time to Verdict	Technology
Smartflash LLC et al v. Apple Inc. et al	$532,900,000	Rodney Gilstrap	2/24/2015	636 days	Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical
VirnetX Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.	$502,567,709	Robert W. Schroeder, III	4/12/2018	1983 days	Computers & Communications, Drugs & Medical
VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et. al.	$302,427,950	Robert W. Schroeder, III	9/30/2016	2242 days	Computers & Communications
United Services Automobile Association v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA	$200,000,000	Rodney Gilstrap	11/6/2019	517 days	Computers & Communications, Others
Ericsson Inc. et al v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al	$75,000,000	Roy S. Payne	12/7/2017	1064 days	Computers & Communications
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al	$43,000,000	Rodney Gilstrap	2/8/2019	548 days	Computers & Communications, Others
Navico, Inc. et al v. Garmin International, Inc. et al	$38,755,000	Rodney Gilstrap	9/8/2017	553 days	Computers & Communications
DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation et al	$31,500,000	Roy S. Payne	6/18/2015	671 days	Computers & Communications, Mechanical
Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Apple Inc. et al	$22,118,216	K. Nicole Mitchell	9/14/2016	891 days	Computers & Communications
Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. et al v. Hughes Network Systems LLC et al	$21,075,750	Robert W. Schroeder, III	8/8/2017	930 days	Computers & Communications
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.	$20,346,390	Ron Clark	11/11/2016	997 days	Drugs & Medical
Cioffi et al v. Google Inc.	$20,000,000	Rodney Gilstrap	2/10/2017	1466 days	Computers & Communications
Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company et al	$20,000,000	William C. Bryson	4/21/2017	660 days	Drugs & Medical
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al	$17,400,000	Roy S. Payne	12/12/2016	544 days	Drugs & Medical
Rembrandt Wireless Technologies LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al	$15,700,000	Rodney Gilstrap	2/13/2015	700 days	Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic
Droplets, Inc. v. eBay, Inc. et al	$15,000,000	Rodney Gilstrap	1/16/2015	1223 days	Computers & Communications
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation	$12,317,000	Robert W. Schroeder, III	11/21/2017	665 days	Mechanical
Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al	$10,553,565	Rodney Gilstrap	8/27/2018	563 days	Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic
Saint Lawrence Communications, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC	$9,177,483	Rodney Gilstrap	3/24/2017	745 days	Computers & Communications
Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp. et al	$8,168,400	Rodney Gilstrap	1/15/2016	724 days	Computers & Communications
Whirlpool Corporation v. TST Water, LLC	$7,600,000	Rodney Gilstrap	3/10/2017	542 days	Mechanical
Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al	$6,970,380	Amos L. Mazzant, III	2/8/2016	609 days	Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, et al	$5,924,374	Robert W. Schroeder, III	11/6/2018	97 days	Computers & Communications
Core Wireless Licensing SARLl v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al	$5,780,000	Rodney Gilstrap	9/16/2016	721 days	Computers & Communications
Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al	$5,750,000	Rodney Gilstrap	10/13/2017	577 days	Computers & Communications
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Actian Corporation et al	$4,320,000	Robert W. Schroeder, III	5/26/2017	749 days	Computers & Communications
Eidos Display, LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al	$4,100,000	Rodney Gilstrap	6/30/2017	2258 days	Electrical & Electronic
Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al	$3,495,711	Rodney Gilstrap	2/27/2019	1615 days	Computers & Communications
Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland LP	$1,541,333	Robert W. Schroeder, III	4/14/2015	713 days	Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty Company	$1,500,000	Rodney Gilstrap	3/13/2019	265 days	Computers & Communications
NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, LLC	$1,470,838	Robert W. Schroeder, III	9/16/2015	1261 days	Computers & Communications
Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC et al	$1,224,955	Amos L. Mazzant, III	1/28/2016	1205 days	Computers & Communications
Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al	$400,000	Rodney Gilstrap	6/15/2018	563 days	Electrical & Electronic
Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A. et al	$324,558	John D. Love	10/7/2016	581 days	Computers & Communications
Gonzalez v. New Life Ventures, Inc.	$75,000	Rodney Gilstrap	2/11/2016	506 days	Computers & Communications
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Intersil Corporation	$73,653	Richard A. Schell	3/6/2015	2292 days	Electrical & Electronic

This is the only way that gives them a reason of avoiding depression that they have erectile problem that stops you to perform during the intercourse, take this male buying viagra in india enhancing medication and see the results for yourself. These herbs like Shilajit find out this generico cialis on line Sudh, Ashwagandha, Safed Musli, Kaunch, Babul Extract, Lauh Bhasma, Bahera, Jaiphal, Sudh Shilajit and Banslochan. Always take prescription from the doctor prescription canada de cialis about the medication is the simplicity of administering Tadalafil. What if you were able to find the right website or they are not prepared to defend due to your omissions. brand viagra 100mg

Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:

Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the Eastern District of Texas between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.

Case	Enjoined Product(s)	Patent(s) Title	Irreparable Harm	Date
Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 6-08-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex. April 14, 2011)	Generic migraine drug therapy	– Anti-migraine methods and compositions using 5-HT agonists with long-acting NSAIDs; – Methods of treating headaches using 5-HT agonists in combination with long-acting NSAIDs; – Multilayer dosage forms containing NSAIDs and triptans	The launch of a generic product would significantly affect Plaintiff’s revenue stream. Such a reduction of revenue would subsequently impact Plaintiff’s ability to allocate its resources to product development. Likewise, Plaintiff would be harmed from the introduction of Defendant’s ANDA product, which at a lower cost, would undoubtedly affect Plaintiff’s market share.	4/14/2011
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation et al, 6-15-cv-00551 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2015)	Water balloon filler	– System and method for filling containers with fluids	Here, Plaintiff and Defendant directly compete with each other and are the only two competitors in relevant market. A pattern of price erosion has arisen from the sale of both products. Particularly, the market entry and continually reduced sale prices of Defendant’s alleged infringing product has driven down the price at which Plaintiff’s product has sold. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have presented additional evidence of consumer confusion, harm to Plaintiffs’ reputation, and loss of goodwill. It is undisputed that Defendant had a lag time in being able to fulfill their orders for the Balloon Bonanza product they were advertising. Plaintiffs further submitted evidence of consumer confusion regarding who the true inventor is from online reviews. Plaintiffs submissions make clear that consumers are not only confused about which product is which, but also mistakenly thinking that the alleged infringing product is Plaintiff’s invention. Plaintiff has shown that the patented invention has been diluted in the minds of the consuming public and that sales of Defendant’s product has interfered with Plaintiff’s product’s mindshare and market position.	9/11/2015
Mylan Institutional LLC et al v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al, 2-16-cv-00491 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016)	Biopsy dye system	– Process for preparation of isosulfan blue	With respect to lost sales, research and development, and price erosion, Plaintiff’s witness testified that Plaintiff’s product constituted a significant portion of Plaintiff’s total revenue before Defendant entered the market, and profit from the product fueled research and development. The witness testified that if half or more of Plaintiff’s revenue from its product is lost as Plaintiff projects, Plaintiff would need to eliminate or delay the research and development of new products currently in development. In addition, the witness testified that two of Plaintiff’s employees had already left the company since Plaintiff had ceased manufacturing, and that employee morale was down because manufacturing activity at the Plaintiff facility was at a standstill. There is no question that Plaintiff will lose most if not all of its sales to Defendant if infringement is allowed to continue. Finally, there is undisputed evidence that Defendant’s infringement has and is continuing to result in significant price erosion.	11/21/2016

Willfulness and Enhancement:

Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the Eastern District of Texas post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.

Case	Notes	Date
Transdata, Inc. v. Denton Mun. Elec., Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-00557-RWS-JDL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110208, at *6-8 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2016)	Plaintiff’s motion to vacate earlier summary judgment of no willful infringement in light of Halo is granted because there are factual disputes related to subjective willfulness	6/29/2016
Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., 6-15-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016)	Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because defendant may have been aware of plaintiff’s patents and of plaintiff’s infringement analysis of at least one patent.	7/7/2016
Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124144, at *22-27 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016)	Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim be denied because the complaint plausibly alleges pre-suit and post-suit willfulness	8/19/2016
Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-CV-371, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113307, at *17-23 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016)	Enhancement is warranted because defendant copied and knew of the patents. The jury award is trebled.	8/24/2016
Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-911, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119470, at *11-14 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2016)	Defendant motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is a genuine issue of material fact	9/2/2016
Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00325 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016)	Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff neither alleges pre-suit notice nor pre-suit egregious conduct; and because plaintiff had not sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendant’s alleged post-filing misconduct.	10/19/2016
NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, LLC, 6-12-cv-00244 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2016)	Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because the jury finding of willfulness was made under the higher clear and convincing standard; plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of defendant’s misconduct under the Read factors. The jury award is enhanced by 1.32.	10/27/2016
Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00912 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2016)	Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is partially granted following jury trial because of defendant’s knowledge of the patent and license negotiation tactics. The jury award is enhanced by 1.2.	11/2/2016
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., 1-14-cv-00104 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017)	Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury trial is denied because no evidence showed that defendant had a belief the patents were invalid at the time it became aware of the patents.	1/25/2017
Erfindergemeinschaft Uropep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30143, at *28-30 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017)	Court declines defendant motion of summary judgment of no willfulness because a jury might find that defendant knew that the patent was both valid and infringed.	3/3/2017
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc. 1-14-cv-00104 (E.D. Tex. April 20, 2017)	Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted because defendant’s copying, its lack of investigation and formation of a good-faith defense, and its failure to take remedial action. The jury award is enhanced by 1.2.	4/20/2017
Imperium Ip Holdings (cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-00371 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017)	Defendant’s motion to reconsider the enhanced damages award is denied because the PTAB’s invalidity decision wouldn’t have changed the court’s mind, and because the court considered all Read factors. Defendant’s motion for a new trial on willfulness is denied because a favorable jury finding under the subjective prong of Seagate is sufficient to show willfulness after Halo.	4/27/2017
Gbr v. Eli Lilly & Co., Case No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB (E.D. Tex. May. 18, 2017)	Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is granted because there was no copying, and defendant raised substantial arguments as to the validity of the patent. The court held so despite that defendant offered no evidence that it consulted counsel after receiving notice of the patent.	5/18/2017
Convolve, Inc. v. Dell Inc., Case No. 2:08-CV-244-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2017)	Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider enhanced damages is denied despite the jury finding of willfulness because there was no egregious misconduct.	6/7/2017
Elbit Sys. Land & C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, Case No. 2:15-CV-00037-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2017)	The magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because defendant didn’t offer sufficient evidence of its executives’ subjective beliefs.	6/20/2017
Preferential Networks IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility et al. 2-16-cv-01374 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 15, 2017)	Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-filing willfulness claims, and recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-filing willfulness claims because service of a complaint is sufficient to withstand a pleadings willfulness challenge.	7/15/2017
T-Rex Property AB v. Regal Entertainment Group, 6-16-cv-00927 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017)	Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-filing willfulness claim, and recommends granting one defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-filing willfulness claim because plaintiff doesn’t adequately plead pre-suit knowledge.	8/31/2017
Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 4-14-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2017)	Plaintiff’s motion for an ongoing royalty is granted, and the jury royalty rate is enhanced because defendant’s continued infringement is unreasonable, deliberate, and willful under the Read factors. The jury royalty rate is enhanced by 1.5.	9/13/2017
VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et. al., 6-10-cv-00417 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)	Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of willfulness following a jury trial, appeal, and retrial is granted; and plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors. The jury award is enhanced by 1.5.	9/29/2017
Ericsson Inc. et al v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al. 2-15-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017)	Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because a reasonable jury could possibly conclude that defendant’s conduct has been egregious.	11/4/2017
Saint Lawrence Communications, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 2-15-cv-00351 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2017)	Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement after a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because there was insufficient evidence of egregious misconduct: defendant did not deliberately copy plaintiff’s technology and defendant did not have an intent to harm the plaintiff.	12/8/2017
Soverain IP, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2-17-cv-00204 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2017)	Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims for failing to allege pre-suit knowledge; and recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim for failure to allege egregious misconduct.	12/12/2017
Eidos Display, LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, 6-11-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2018)	Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors, and the jury award is doubled.	3/5/2018
Whirlpool Corporation v. TST Water, LLC, 2-15-cv-01528 (E.D. Tex. March 29, 2018)	Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors after a jury verdict of willfulness, and the jury award is enhanced by 1.5.	3/29/2018
Ericsson Inc. et al v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al, 2-15-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2018)	After a jury finding of egregiousness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors; and plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of willfulness is granted. The jury award is enhanced by 1.33.	5/10/2018
VirnetX Inc. et al v. Apple Inc., 6-12-cv-00855 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018)	Following a jury verdict of willful infringement, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because the case was close, the misconduct was brief, and the remediation effort was significant. The court also considered the size of the jury verdict in refusing to enhance.	8/30/2018
Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 07, 2018)	Following a jury verdict of willful infringement, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because egregious infringement behavior is present. Moreover defendant’s size and financial condition, the closeness of the case, the duration of the misconduct, and the lack of remedial action support enhancement. The jury award is enhanced by 1.49.	9/7/2018
GeoDynamics, Incorporated v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., 2-17-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2018)	Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because a reasonable jury could find that defendant willfully infringed by being aware of a risk of infringement, selling products, and failing to procure an opinion of counsel.	9/17/2018
Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2018)	Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because there was adequate evidence showing that defendant knew of the asserted patents. A good-faith belief in invalidity does not negate the scienter required for willful infringement.	9/27/2018
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019)	Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted as to pre-suit willfulness because knowledge of the patent family is too attenuated to give reasonable notice of the asserted patents. The motion is denied as to post-suit willfulness.	1/8/2019
AMG Products, Inc. d/b/a AMG Development et al v. Dirt Cheap, LLC et al, 6-18-cv-00267 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2019)	The Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff allege that defendant learned of the patent and of plaintiff’s product before the complaint was filed, but continued to sell its allegedly infringing product.	3/12/2019
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation, 6-16-cv-00033 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2019)	Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is granted because of defendant’s egregious behavior. After a previous defendant product was enjoined, the defendants only made a cosmetic change to it, and not a substantive one. Moreover, defendants’ litigation conduct was unreasonable. The jury award is enhanced by 2.0. One defendant’s JMOL motion for no willfulness is granted because the jury never heard any testimony from any witness from the defendant. The jury thus didn’t hear sufficient evidence to find willfulness.	3/27/2019
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint PCS et al, 2-17-cv-00662 (E.D. Tex. April 12, 2019)	The Magistrate Judge recommends partially granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because knowledge of the parent of one of the asserted patents or knowledge of other patents with the same inventor as the asserted patents is insufficient.	4/12/2019
Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2019)	Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied. The jury was entitled to consider the testimony of defendant’s corporate representative and defendant’s decision to continue selling the accused products.	6/5/2019
Fractus, SA v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2-18-cv-00135 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 16, 2019)	Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of a dispute of material fact as to intent. That the defendant knew about the lawsuit and continued to use the accused products is at least some circumstantial evidence that the jury could rely on to find willfulness.	9/16/2019
Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corporation et al, 9-18-cv-00180 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2019)	Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. A well-pled claim of willful blindness is sufficient to state a claim for willful infringement.	9/27/2019
Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc, 5-19-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)	Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness clam is granted as to one patent because plaintiff failed to sufficiently pledge knowledge. Plaintiff only pleaded that defendant had knowledge of the patent application and not the ultimately issued patent. The motion to dismiss is denied as to other patents. The complaint alleges that defendant and plaintiff met and communicated multiple times to discuss a potential business transaction relating to the asserted patents and defendant’s products.	10/23/2019
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC et al, 2-18-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)	The Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims. The complaint sufficiently alleges direct infringement and that defendant had knowledge of the patent as of the date of filing.	10/23/2019

Section 285 Attorney Fees:

Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the Eastern District of Texas post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.

Case	Notes	Date
eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., 2-15-cv-00541 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2015)	Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s patent claims were clearly directed towards unpatentable subject matter, and plaintiff proffered untenable arguments to the court in opposing the Section 101 motion, and because of plaintiff’s litigation strategy of filing suit against over 200 defendants hoping for early nuisance settlements.	12/17/2015
Adaptix, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., et. al., 6-12-cv-00022 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2016)	Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s late production (5 days before trial) of relevant inventorship documents.	3/18/2016
Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland LP, 6-13-cv-00366 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016)	Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant willfully infringed, because of defendant’s continued assertion of its rejected theories, and because defendant’s litigation conduct, when looked at as a whole, multiplied the proceedings and needlessly increased costs.	6/16/2016
Chrimar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies et al v. ADTRAN, Inc., 6-15-cv-00618 (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2016)	Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff is entitled to fees against a defaulting defendant because defendant’s failure to participate in the action caused plaintiff to expend significant resources addressing default proceedings.	6/30/2016
Iris Connex, LLC v. Dell Inc., 2-15-cv-01915 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017)	Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement theory was baseless, because plaintiff’s proposed claim construction was unreasonable, because of plaintiff’s offer to settle for below the costs of defense, and because of plaintiff’s pattern of suing many defendants.	1/25/2017
Huang et al v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., 2-15-cv-01413 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2017)	Defendant is entitled to fees, notwithstanding that plaintiff was acting pro se, because plaintiff showed no evidence of a meaningful pre-suit investigation, and because the evidence showed that plaintiff’s motive was to extract a settlement.	3/27/2017
Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 4-14-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2017)	Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s continued willful infringement, material misrepresentations to the court, and untimely discovery responses.	9/13/2017
VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et. al., 6-10-cv-00417 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)	Plaintiff is entitled to fees incurred during the retrial because of defendant’s continued infringement after the original verdict, because of defendant’s repeated attempts to stay the litigation after adverse rulings from the court, and because of defendant improper conflict check for a consultant.	9/29/2017
Opal Run LLC v. C & A Marketing, Inc., 2-16-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2017)	Defendant is entitled to fees after plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal because plaintiff’s behavior suggested it filed the suit to extract settlements with no intent of testing the merits; plaintiff filed 20 suits on the same day concerning the same patent.	11/30/2017
My Health, Inc. v. ALR Technologies, Inc., 2-16-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017)	Defendant is entitled to fees because by the time plaintiff filed suit it was clear that its claims were directed to an abstract idea, and because plaintiff filed and settled many suits, suggesting that the suits were filed to extract settlements and not to test the merits of the claims.	12/19/2017
Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. et al v. Hughes Network Systems LLC et al, 2-15-cv-00037 (E.D. Tex. April 23, 2018)	Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant argued rejected claim construction positions at trial, and because defendant ignored the court’s orders in discovery in a way that increased costs for both sides and the burden on the court.	4/23/2018
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation, 6-16-cv-00033 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2019)	Plaintiff is entitled to fees because defendant’s litigation conduct was unreasonable and because of the jury finding of willfulness. Defendant’s motion practice was excessive and seemingly conducted to burden plaintiff and cause delay.	3/27/2019
Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al, 2-17-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2019)	Declaratory plaintiff is entitled to fees because declaratory defendant used a maneuver calculated to divest the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain claims and at the same time deprive declaratory plaintiff the opportunity to pursue its declaratory claim that it had complied with its FRAND obligation.	11/15/2019

Excluding Unqualified Damages Experts:

Below are issued decisions on damages experts qualifications from the Eastern District of Texas between June 13, 2016 and November 7, 2019.

Case	Result	Notes	Date
Alexsam, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., et. al., 2-13-cv-00003 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2013)	Not excluded	Plaintiff’s motion to exclude technical testimony from defendant’s damages expert is denied because the expert’s opinions concern non-infringing alternatives, and the damages expert properly relies on defendant’s technical expert without offering technical opinions on infringement or invalidity.	5/28/2013
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, 1-12-cv-00580 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2014)	Not excluded	Plaintiff’s motion to strike the report of defendant’s damages expert re the comparability of licenses is denied because the expert will be offering economic testimony, not scientific or engineering based testimony; and because the damages expert relied on defendant’s technical expert.	8/22/2014
Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC et al, 4-12-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2016)	Excluded	Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s designation of its CEO as an expert is granted because plaintiff failed to show that its CEO is qualified to speak as an expert towards issues regarding infringement or the calculation of damages.	1/6/2016
Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Oracle America, Inc., 6-16-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex. March 30, 2017)	Excluded	Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s technical expert regarding apportionment as unqualified is granted because although the expert has a Ph.D. in computer science and academic and industry experience in hardware and software design and development, the expert has limited experience with economic apportionment. The technical expert’s opinions may be an input into the damages expert’s opinion about the proper apportionment value, but may not be the final apportionment value itself.	3/30/2017
S3G Technology LLC v. UniKey Technologies, Inc., 6-16-cv-00400 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2018)	Excluded	Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s damages expert regarding comparable agreements is granted because the expert’s background and skills are negotiating technology licenses related to smart locks, access control systems, and mobile keys. The expert has not technical expertise in the accused technology, and thus cannot opine on the technological comparability of the patents-in-suit and the patent in the agreement.	5/8/2018
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint PCS et al, 2-17-cv-00662 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2019)	Not excluded	Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert regarding patent valuations as unqualified is denied. However, the expert served in a similar role in a case between some of the same parties a few months before.	4/11/2019
Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. et al v. Hwang, 2-18-cv-00014 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2019)	Not excluded	Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of defendant’s expert report on lost profits as unqualified is denied. The damages expert, having a background in economics, is qualify to conduct the analysis on manufacturing and marketing capacity under Panduit.	5/20/2019
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00718 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019)	Not excluded	Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the analysis of defendant’s technical expert on apportionment is denied. The expert has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. Between his education and his experience, the expert is sufficiently qualified to provide opinions on a technical apportionment analysis.	9/18/2019
Mobility Workx, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al, 4-17-cv-00872 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2019)	Not excluded	Defendant’s motion to exclude the opinions of plaintiff’s damages expert as unqualified is denied. While none of his degrees are in economics, a degree is not required to serve as an expert. The expert has sufficient experience in evaluating technology and patents to license, providing third parties with economic advice, and evaluating assets to serve as the damages expert in this case.	11/5/2019

Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:

Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the Eastern District of Texas concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.

District court’s denial of attorney fees is vacated in light of Octane Fitness (Adjustacam v. Newegg)

For standard-essential patent damages, the district court must discount the value of standardization (Scientific v. Cisco)

Pre-patent consumer confusion, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill support irreparable harm (Tinnus v. Telebrands)

Patentee cannot bypass marking statute by disclaiming the unmarked feature (Rembrandt v. Samsung)

No irreparable harm where the parties don’t meaningfully compete, and where plaintiff licensed to others (Nichia v. Everlight)

Causal nexus found where Defendant couldn’t achieve ANDA product without infringing (Mylan v. Aurobindo)

Fees warranted where party showed pattern of suing and settling for sums below costs of defense (Rothschild v. Guardian)

Case not exceptional where accused products were different than those earlier held non-infringing (Parallel Networks v. Kayak)

Case exceptional where plaintiff litigated after a conclusive Markman order, and had nuisance settlements (AdjustaCam v. Newegg)

For multi-component products, causal nexus only requires some connection between the feature and product demand (Genband v. Metaswitch)

Patent owner’s lost profits, willfulness finding, and enhanced damages affirmed (Georgetown Rail v. Holland)

Denial of permanent injunction vacated because willingness to license does not necessarily mean no irreparable harm (Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas)