NPE case not exceptional because plaintiff had good faith positions and did not delay in its litigation tactics

Sarif Biomedical v. Brainlab is a nonprecedential case decided on March 21, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. There were concurrent PTAB and district court litigations, but the PTAB litigation terminated before the district court litigation. Following claim construction adverse to plaintiff Sarif at the district court, the parties jointly …

Jury royalty awarding plaintiff 71% of infringer’s per-unit profit is supported by the evidence

Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. Pre-trial, the district court granted defendant Kaz summary judgment of no willful infringement because its invalidity contentions were objectively reasonable. At trial, the jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid, …

No declaratory jurisdiction where invalidity issue would not resolve the underlying contractual dispute

AbbVie v. MedImmune was decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. A 1995 agreement between the parties licensed AbbVie to practice the ‘516 patent, among others. AbbVie did not practice the patent at the time. Under the agreement, AbbVie was to pay royalties on the sales …

Enhanced damages vacated because district court did not particularly explain the basis for trebling the award

WCM v. IPS is a nonprecedential opinion decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Tennessee.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 …

Irreparable harm shown where risk averse customers would perceive that plaintiff no longer had an exclusive license

MACOM Tech. v. Infineon was decided on January 29, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The parties entered into an agreement that allowed plaintiff MACOM and defendant Infineon to share rights to practice licensed patents within a general “Field of Use.” The agreement further defined an “Exclusive Field” …

Losing a summary judgment motion does not automatically make the plaintiff’s case exceptional

Honeywell v. Fujifilm is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 11, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court found plaintiff Honeywell’s patent invalid on summary judgment. The court thereafter denied defendant Fujifilm’s motion for attorney fees. Fujifilm appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney fees. The …

If the smallest salable unit has non-infringing features, the patentee must further apportion the royalty

Finjan v. Blue Coat was decided on January 10, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. A jury found defendant Blue Coat liable for infringement of four patents (the ‘633, ‘731, ‘844, and ‘968) owned by plaintiff Finjan, and awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The patents related to internet …

Fees awarded because plaintiff continued with meritless eligibility arguments after Alice

Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath & Beyond was decided on December 8, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After the Supreme Court decided Alice, defendant BBB won judgment on the pleadings that plaintiff Inventor Holdings’ patent was invalid under Alice. BBB then moved for attorney fees. The district court granted …

After the alleged infringer produces unmarked products, the patentee has the burden to show they’re not covered

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 …

Lost profits award reversed because of non-infringing substitute; permanent injunction then vacated

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, …