Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline was decided on November 19, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff Vectura prevailed on the issues of validity, infringement, and willful infringement, and the “jury awarded Vectura a royalty of 3% on a royalty base of $2.99 billion in sales for the …
Exmark Manufacturing v. Briggs & Stratton is a nonprecedential case decided on October 6, 2020, on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Following grant of summary judgment of infringement and no invalidity, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found that Defendant Briggs willfully infringed Plaintiff Exmark’s …
GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva was decided on October 2, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Defendant Teva induced infringement of Plaintiff GSK’s patent, awarded GSK “$234,110,000 based on lost profits, plus royalty payments of $1,400,000,” and found that the infringement was willful. The district court …
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 …
Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics was decided on August 3, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Plaintiff Bio-Rad’s three asserted patents were valid and willfully infringed, and “awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716.” Post-trial, the district court denied Defendant 10X’s motion for JMOL, …
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating was decided on May 13, 2020, on appeal from the District of Minnesota. The district court granted Plaintiff Schwendimann motion for summary judgment of proper standing. Following a jury trial, a judgment of willful infringement was entered against Defendant Arkwright and the jury awarded Schwendimann …
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 …
Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …
Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …
Although the Federal Circuit has “never described the Georgia–Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15–factor list.” Ericsson v. D-Link. The factors derive from Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood. The Federal Circuit does “not require that witnesses use any or all of the Georgia–Pacific factors when testifying about damages” in …