Lost profits and permanent injunction found appropriate in two-supplier market

TEK Global v. Sealant Systems was decided on March 29, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The patent related to tire repair kits. At trial, the jury found some claims not invalid, and awarded plaintiff TEK $2,525,482 in lost profits and $255,388 in the form of a reasonable royalty. After trial, …

Willfulness and enhancement vacated, but exceptionality finding affirmed

This opinion was superseded.  SRI International v. Cisco was decided on March 20, 2019 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court denied defendant Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility and anticipation. At trial, the jury found willful infringement, and awarded plaintiff SRI a 3.5% reasonable royalty rate …

Jury royalty relying on previous related jury verdict is affirmed – modified opinion

Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case originally decided on November 30, 2018, and modified on March 18, 2019 on appeal from the District of Kansas. The Federal Circuit modified the opinion in response to Time Warner’s petition for rehearing. The opinion was slightly modified to better explain the damages …

Lower court did not err in using aggregate method instead of apportionment to award fees

Drop Stop v. Zhu is a nonprecedential case decided on February 8, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. After the parties reached a settlement stipulating to infringement of some claims, plaintiff Drop Stop moved for attorney fees. The district court granted the motion and awarded $600,000 in fees …

Stipulated reasonable royalty affirmed and lost profits remanded after intervening invalidity of some claims at the PTAB

WesternGeco v. ION was decided on remand from the Supreme Court on January 11, 2019 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. At trial, the jury found the asserted claims not invalid and awarded plaintiff WesternGeco a reasonable royalty of $12.5 million and lost profits of $93.4 million. After many rounds of …

Jury royalty relying on previous related jury verdict is affirmed

This opinion was superseded.    Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case decided on November 30, 2018 on appeal from the District of Kansas. At trial the district court permitted Sprint to introduce evidence of a jury verdict in a related case by Sprint against another defendant. The jury found that …

Lump-sum royalty covering products not accused to be infringing is vacated

Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor was decided on November 19, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory plaintiff Enplas filed an declaratory action against declaratory defendant Seoul Semiconductor on two patents. Seoul Semiconductor counterclaimed, asserting infringement and seeking damages. On summary judgment, the district court held that no reasonable juror could …

Fees for entire suit proper where plaintiff’s misconduct permeated the entire case

Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on August 20, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. 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. On remand …

Pro se plaintiff held liable for attorney fees and expert costs

Huang v. Huawei Technologies is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After serving invalidity contentions, defendant Huawei served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter on pro se plaintiff Huang, asserting that Huang’s “claims were baseless and that a pre-suit investigation would have revealed …

Party waived right to challenge finding of no willfulness despite change in law

Ultratec v. Sorenson is a nonprecedential case decided on May 18, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury awarded plaintiff Ultratec a “total royalty payment of approximately $5,443,485.” The district court concluded on JMOL that there was no willfulness because plaintiff could not meet the objective prong of Seagate, …