Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics was decided on August 3, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Plaintiff Bio-Rad’s three asserted patents were valid and willfully infringed, and “awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716.” Post-trial, the district court denied Defendant 10X’s motion for JMOL, …
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, …
A party seeking an injunction must make a clear showing that it is at risk of irreparable harm. In cases where “the accused product includes many features of which only one (or a small minority) infringe,” a finding that the patentee will be at risk of irreparable harm “does not …
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” …
Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on April 3, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In an earlier December 6, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit maintained the permanent injunction during the remand, and Chief Judge Prost dissented because she would have vacated the injunction. In the April 3, 2017 decision, the …
Metalcraft of Mayville v. Toro was decided on February 16, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The patent relates to a system for ride-on lawnmowers. The district court granted plaintiff Metalcraft a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant Toro from making, using, selling, and offering to sell lawnmowers equipped with …
In KSM Fastening v. HA Jones (1985), the Federal Circuit laid out the law for finding a defendant in contempt of an injunction for an infringing redesigned product. This was the law for more than twenty five years, until 2011. Under the KSM test, the court first determines whether a …
United Construction v. Tile Tech was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. The patent concerned a support pedestal adapted to support surface tiles to form an elevated building surface. After “a series of delays, missed deadlines, and other procedural missteps by [defendant] Tile Tech,” …
This opinion was superseded. Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Asetek prevailed at trial, receiving a judgment of infringement and of no invalidity, plus a damages award against defendant CMI of $404,941 on a 14.5% royalty rate. The district …
M-I v. FPUSA is a nonprecedential case decided on September 24, 2015 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court preliminarily enjoined defendant FPUSA from promoting, selling, or renting a system that infringed one or more claims of plaintiff M-I’s patent. FPUSA appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …