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Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts.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, …

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WCM v. IPS is a nonprecedential opinion decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Tennessee.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

Sales of the entire product appropriate as the royalty base if patentee properly apportions the royalty rate

Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton was decided on January 12, 2018 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. The invention related to a lawn mower having an improved device for directing airflow and grass clippings during operation. The district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted claim 1 was not invalid …

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 …

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, …

District court erred in holding that Octane Fitness does not apply to the Lanham Act

Romag Fasteners v. Fossil was decided on August 9, 2017 on appeal from the District of Connecticut. There, after the jury returned a verdict for trademark and patent infringement for plaintiff Romag, the district court granted attorney fees under the Patent Act but not under the Lanham Act, finding that defendant …

Attorney fee award vacated because party no longer the prevailing party

Chaffin v. Braden was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. There, the district court granted defendant Braden’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, adopting Braden’s claim construction. The court subsequently found the case exceptional and awarded attorney fees to Braden. Chaffin appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed …

Pattern of enforcing patent rights doesn’t make a losing case exceptional

Checkpoint v. All-Tag was decided on June 5, 2017. There, a jury found Plaintiff Checkpoint’s patent not infringed, not invalid, and not unenforceable. After appeals to the Federal Circuit, and to the Supreme Court (in conjunction with Octane Fitness), the case returned to the district court on remand. On remand, …

Patentee cannot bypass marking statute by disclaiming the unmarked feature

Rembrandt v. Samsung was decided on April 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The patents related to Bluetooth technology. There, the jury found that defendant Samsung infringed plaintiff Rembrandt’s patents, and awarded $15.7 million in damages. After trial, the district court denied Samsung’s motion for JMOL on obviousness …

False marking damages require concrete evidence of causation, not general assertions

Gravelle v. Kaba is a nonprecedential case decided on April 12, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina . There, defendant Kaba marked its key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for two features—although no patent application for those features was ever filed. Plaintiff Gravelle filed suit pro se, …