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 …
Lost-profits damages are appropriate “whenever there is a reasonable probability that, but for the infringement, the patentee would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.” Versata Software v. SAP. A showing under the four-factor Panduit test establishes the required causation. These factors include: “(1) demand for the patented product, (2) …
35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that “the court shall award [the patent owner] damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” “A patent owner, having prevailed on liability, may receive a reasonable royalty or lost …
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, …
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 …
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that an expert witness may testify if he or she ” is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow and Rule 702, courts are charged with a gatekeeping role, the objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is …
Lost-profits damages are appropriate “whenever there is a reasonable probability that, but for the infringement, the patentee would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.” Versata Software v. SAP. A showing under the four-factor Panduit test establishes the required causation. These factors include: “(1) demand for the …
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, …
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. …
Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA was decided on March 16, 2017 on appeal from the District of Oregon. The patents concerned simulation/emulation technology. After plaintiff Mentor sued defendant EVE for patent infringement, EVE sued Mentor for a declaratory judgment that a non-asserted patent was invalid. Mentor then counterclaimed for willful infringement of …