“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …
“Awards of enhanced damages are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a punitive or vindictive sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” WCM v. IPS. There is “no requirement that enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct.” Id. Rather, “courts should continue to take into account the particular circumstances of …
Polara v. Campbell was decided on July 10, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The jury entered a verdict that the asserted claims were not invalid and that defendant Campbell willfully infringed the claims. After trial, the district court enhanced damages by 2.5, denied Campbell’s motion for JMOL …
After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under Section 284 of the Patent Act. This post deals primarily with the role of the judge and the jury in the willfulness and enhancement determination. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that …
Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts.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, …
WCM v. IPS is a nonprecedential opinion decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Tennessee.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 …
Georgetown Rail v. Holland was decided on August 1, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that defendant Holland willfully infringed plaintiff Georgetown Rail’s patent and award lost profits. The district court then denied Holland’s motion for JMOL, and enhanced damages based on the finding of willfulness. …
After a finding of willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. This post deals primarily with finding willfulness, and not enhancing damages. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. In June 2016, Halo v. Pulse rejected the Seagate test and established new …
After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. After this showing of objective recklessness, the …
Stryker v. Zimmer was decided on September 12, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Michigan. There, a jury found plaintiff-Stryker’s patents valid and infringed, awarded $70 million in lost profits, and found that defendant-Zimmer willfully infringed under the then-controlling Seagate standard. The district court then issued an order rejecting Zimmer’s motion …