This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.
Below are the patent jury verdicts from the District of Delaware between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $12,500,000, and median time to verdict from complaint is 1,008 days.
| Case | Amount | Judge | Verdict Date | Time to Verdict | Technology |
| Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. | $2,540,000,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 12/15/2016 | 898 days | Chemical, Drugs & Medical |
| GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. | $235,510,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 6/20/2017 | 1083 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Bayer HealthCare, LLC v. Baxalta Incorporated, et al | $155,190,264 | Richard G. Andrews | 2/5/2019 | 792 days | Others |
| Roche Diagnostics Corporation v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC | $137,250,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 11/25/2019 | 1006 days | Chemical, Drugs & Medical |
| Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al | $89,712,069 | Richard G. Andrews | 5/3/2019 | 1010 days | Drugs & Medical |
| International Business Machines Corporation v. Groupon, Inc. | $82,500,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 7/27/2018 | 877 days | Computers & Communications |
| Amgen Inc. et al v. Hospira, Inc. | $70,000,000 | Richard G. Andrews | 9/25/2017 | 738 days | Chemical, Drugs & Medical |
| Green Mountain Glass, LLC et al v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. d/b/a Verallia North America n/k/a Ardagh Glass Inc. | $50,313,779 | Gregory M. Sleet | 4/21/2017 | 1120 days | Chemical, Mechanical |
| Liqwd, Inc. et al v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al | $46,770,000 | Sherry R. Fallon | 8/12/2019 | 949 days | Others |
| Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation et al | $37,500,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 1/26/2016 | 1006 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical |
| Boston Scientific Corporation et al v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation | $35,417,685 | Sherry R. Fallon | 12/11/2018 | 966 days | Drugs & Medical |
| Sprint Communications Company LP v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC et al | $27,600,000 | Richard G. Andrews | 2/6/2015 | 917 days | Computers & Communications, Mechanical |
| Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc., et. al. | $24,270,194 | Leonard P. Stark | 11/9/2018 | 3822 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic |
| RainDance Technologies, Inc. et al v. 10X Genomics, Inc. | $23,930,718 | Richard G. Andrews | 11/13/2018 | 1370 days | Chemical, Drugs & Medical |
| SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. | $23,660,000 | Sue L. Robinson | 5/12/2016 | 981 days | Computers & Communications |
| Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation et al | $22,169,007 | Leonard P. Stark | 1/14/2019 | 2090 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Others |
| EMC Corporation, et al. v. Pure Storage Inc. | $14,000,000 | Richard G. Andrews | 3/16/2016 | 841 days | Computers & Communications |
| IOENGINE LLC v. GlassBridge Enterprises, Inc. | $11,000,000 | Gregory M. Sleet | 2/17/2017 | 779 days | Computers & Communications |
| Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corporation et al. | $8,000,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 6/8/2015 | 1643 days | Computers & Communications |
| Siemens Industry, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation d/b/a Wabtec Corporation et al | $6,661,441 | Leonard P. Stark | 1/25/2019 | 1009 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic, Mechanical, Others |
| AgroFresh Inc. v. Mirtech, Inc. et al | $6,000,000 | Maryellen Noreika | 10/11/2019 | 1164 days | Chemical |
| Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. | $4,787,667 | Joseph F. Bataillon | 7/27/2018 | 994 days | Drugs & Medical |
| EI du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Unifrax I LLC | $3,272,000 | Richard G. Andrews | 5/16/2017 | 958 days | Others |
| f’real Foods, LLC et al v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al | $3,233,869 | Colm F. Connolly | 5/3/2019 | 1193 days | Chemical, Others |
| Ironworks Patents LLC v. Apple Inc. | $3,000,000 | Sue L. Robinson | 9/21/2016 | 2366 days | Computers & Communications |
| Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, et. al. v. Power Integrations Inc. | $2,385,000 | Leonard P. Stark | 6/5/2015 | 1130 days | Electrical & Electronic |
| Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc. d/b/a The D+M Group et al | $1,989,818 | William C. Bryson | 12/15/2017 | 1151 days | Computers & Communications, Electrical & Electronic |
| Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia Inc. | $1,550,916 | Noel L. Hillman | 1/30/2017 | 2714 days | Chemical |
| IOENGINE LLC v. Interactive Media Corp. | $1,400,000 | Gregory M. Sleet | 1/17/2017 | 748 days | Computers & Communications, |
| Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al | $950,000 | Joseph F. Bataillon | 11/8/2018 | 1203 days | Computers & Communications |
| Gavrieli Brands LLC v. Soto Massini (USA) Corp. et al | $880,658 | Maryellen Noreika | 5/3/2019 | 403 days | Others |
| Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, et. al. v. Power Integrations Inc. | $719,029 | Leonard P. Stark | 11/15/2018 | 2389 days | Electrical & Electronic |
| Nox Medical ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc. | $623,175 | Richard G. Andrews | 5/7/2018 | 994 days | Drugs & Medical, Electrical & Electronic |
| EMC Corporation et. al. v. Zerto, Inc. | $585,783 | Gregory M. Sleet | 5/11/2015 | 1025 days | Computers & Communications |
Indulge in activities that cheap sildenafil tablets help you grow and evolve as a person. Sperm donation may be a treatment option for :: 1. cipla india viagra Drugs with this ingredient assures a long lasting and confident in time of making love. viagra brand online http://www.icks.org/data/ijks/1482456658_add_file_4.pdf buy cipla tadalafil It would be a bummer to be the token senior in a gen-ed class of freshmen four years down the road.
Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:
Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the District of Delaware between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.
| Case | Enjoined Product(s) | Patent Title(s) | Irreparable Harm | Date |
| Sciele Pharma Inc., et. al. v. Lupin Ltd., et. al., 1-09-cv-00037 (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2011) | Generic high blood sugar medication | – Controlled release oral tablet having a unitary core;
– Controlled release metformin compositions |
Plaintiff projects that its goodwill will suffer as a result of the entry of Defendant’s generic drug. Moreoever, if Defendant’s product remains in distribution channels while Plaintiff awaits trial, Plaintiff avers, its product could lose up to 90 percent of its sales while Defendant’s generic products are in the marketplace. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s entry into the market will create price erosion. | 12/6/2011 |
| Edwards Lifesciences AG et al v. Corevalve Inc., et al, 1-08-cv-00091 (D. Del. April 15, 2014) | Heart valves | – Valve Prothesis for Implantation in the Body and a Catheter for Implanting such Valve Prothesis | Plaintiff argues that it will lose sales, market share, and revenue if Defendant is permitted to launch its product in the US. Plaintiff points to the fact that Defendant will be Plaintiff’ only competitor in the United States and will compete directly against Plaintiff for the same customers. (D.I. 550 at if 5.) Plaintiff also highlights the drop in its market value and the negative projections regarding Plaintiff’s future that have accompanied Defendant’ s announcement of an accelerated launch in the US. Based on Defendant’ s history of undercutting Plaintiff’ prices in Europe, Plaintiff warns that Defendant’s entry into the United States market will cause similar erosion in the price of its product. | 4/15/2014 |
| M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Technologies, Inc., 1-14-cv-00181 (D. Del. June 16, 2014) | GPS modules | – Integrated global positioning system receiver | Plaintiff’s relationship with an important customer is being damaged in a manner that money damages will not fully remedy, and in an amount not entirely calculable. Nearly all of Plaintiff’s sales for its patented technology are made to this primary customer, and these sales generate more than a quarter of all revenues to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has proven that it has had to give price concessions to the primary customer, which were required at least in large part because of the emergence of a competitor for technology previously sold only by Plaintiff. The primary customer demanded and achieved these price decreases by leveraging Defendant as a second source and, ultimately, awarding some business to Defendant. Some evidence shows that denying the preliminary injunction could impair Plaintiff’s ability to pursue research and development and lead to layoffs. | 6/16/2014 |
| CryoLife, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc. et al, 1-14-cv-00559 (D. Del. March 10, 2015) | Clotting product | – Topically Applied Clotting Material | There is sufficient record evidence that Declaratory Defendant’s product is in direct competition with Declaratory Plaintiff’s product and that these products are targeted to the same customers. Declaratory Defendant has made persuasive arguments for the loss of its customer base and damage to its goodwill. | 3/10/2015 |
| Liqwd, Inc. et al v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al, 1-17-cv-00014 (D. Del. April 25, 2019) | Keratin hair care products | – Keratin treatment formulations and methods | Plaintiff presented evidence showing actual monetary harm, and reputational harm. | 4/25/2019 |
| Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-01043 (D. Del. June 24, 2019) | Multiple sclerosis drug | – S1P receptor modulators for treating relasping-remitting multiple sclerosis | Plaintiff has shown that in the absence of a preliminary injunction, it’s likely that one or more and up to six generics will undertake an at-risk launch, and as a result, Plaintiff will suffer immediate and substantial harm that cannot be remedied by money damages even if Plaintiff ultimately prevails at trial. These harms include the likely massive and immediate price erosion in the relevant market. Plaintiff will not be able to raise the price back up. Moreover, if Plaintiff tries to raise the price of its product back to the pre-infringement level, Plaintiff would be widely criticized, thereby suffering irreparable harm to its goodwill. | 6/24/2019 |
| Nevro Corp. v. Stimwave Technologies, Inc., 1-19-cv-00325 (D. Del. July 24, 2019) | Spinal cord stimulation product | – Selective high frequency spinal cord modulation for inhibiting pain with reduced side effects, and associated systems and methods
|
Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant’s entry into the relevant market will likely result in irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation. Plaintiff has built its brand on its patented technology. Plaintiff has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to bring its product to market and to support it, and that all of Plaintiff’s research and development is directed towards the patented technology. Plaintiff has never licensed its patented technology, and it publicizes in all of its marketing material and in its press releases the fact that its product is patented. Moreover, Plaintiff has established that it would suffer reputational harm resulting from the Defendant’s inferior product. | 7/24/2019 |
Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the District of Delaware post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Varian Med. Sys. v. Elekta AB, Civil Action No. 15-871-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91226, at *24-27 (D. Del. July 12, 2016) | The complaint doesn’t adequately plead willfulness | 7/12/2016 |
| DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc., No. 15-654-SLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106484, at *14-17 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2016) | Plaintiff’s general willfulness allegations survive motion to dismiss | 8/11/2016 |
| Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company, 1-13-cv-00843 (D. Del. Oct. 20, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is evidence that defendant set out to reverse engineer plaintiff’s product and perhaps infringe a patent it knew was pending. | 10/20/2016 |
| Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., No. 09-80-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154520, at *48-51 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2016) | Motion for summary judgment of no willfulness granted with respect to one patent (because a reasonable fact finder couldn’t find that defendant subjectively intended to infringe the patent) and denied with respect to the other | 10/31/2019 |
| Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Ubisoft Entm’t SA, Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153207, at *35-41 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2016) | Pre-suit and post-suit willfulness claims are dismissed because the defendant had no notice of its alleged infringement | 11/4/2016 |
| Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., No. 13-723-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171939, at *9 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) | Plaintiff’s motion to vacate earlier summary judgment of no willfulness (under Seagate) in light of Halo is denied because of defendant’s pre-litigation measures | 12/13/2016 |
| Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et. al., 1-09-cv-01007 (D. Del. Jan. 5, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because pre-suit knowledge of a patent isn’t sufficient, and plaintiff doesn’t identify any evidence beyond pre-suit knowledge. | 1/5/2017 |
| Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Sci. Inc., Civil Action No. 16-358-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13548, at *3-4 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because it’s plausible that defendant intentionally or knowingly infringed the patent | 1/31/2017 |
| Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Symantec Corporation, 1-13-cv-00440 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because pre-suit knowledge alone is not sufficient for willfulness. | 2/13/2017 |
| Quest Integrity United States, LLC v. Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc., Civ. No. 14-1482-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because the “extremely convoluted chain of events” is best left to the jury. | 3/28/2017 |
| Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., C. A. No. 16-679-RGA-MPT (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2017) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ willfulness claims because plaintiff presented evidence that defendants knew or should have known of the matter in the relevant patent. | 4/6/2017 |
| Sri Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 13-1534-SLR (D. Del. May. 25, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because Halo eliminated Seagate’s objective prong, and because substantial evidence supported the finding. Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is granted because of defendant’s litigation conduct, its apparent disdain for plaintiff, and the fact that it lost on all issues during summary judgment and at trial. The jury award is doubled. | 5/25/2017 |
| Bayer HealthCare, LLC v. Baxalta Incorporated, et al, 1-16-cv-01122 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-filing claims for willfulness is granted because alleging knowledge of the parent application is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss for failing to allege egregious conduct is denied because there is no need to allege egregiousness at the pleadings. | 8/10/2017 |
| Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 1-14-cv-00846 (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because defendant’s good faith defenses, litigation behavior, closeness of the case, duration of misconduct, lack of motivation for harm didn’t favor enhancement; and because plaintiff failed to show the need for a punitive sanction or deterrence. | 9/22/2017 |
| Rhodes Pharmaceuticals LP v. Indivior Inc., 1-16-cv-01308 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because defendant’s conduct after learning of the patent claims plausibly shows objective recklessness of the infringement risk. | 1/8/2018 |
| Shire ViroPharma Incorporated v. CSL Behring LLC, 1-17-cv-00414 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because broader allegations of willfulness without a specific showing of egregiousness are sufficient at the pleadings stage. | 1/8/2018 |
| Valmont Industries Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, 1-15-cv-00042 (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff did not show that defendant has known or should’ve known that its actions constituted infringement. | 1/22/2018 |
| Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 1-15-cv-00915 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because plaintiff failed to show egregious conduct pre- or post-suit; willful blindness at most shows knowledge rather than egregious conduct, and thus isn’t sufficient. | 1/30/2018 |
| Kyowa Hakko Bio Co., Ltd. et al v. Ajinomoto Co., Ltd. et al, 1-17-cv-00313 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the complaint sufficiently pleads knowledge of the patent, and allows for an inference of egregious conduct. | 2/12/2018 |
| Green Mountain Glass, LLC et al v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. d/b/a Verallia North America n/k/a Ardagh Glass Inc., 1-14-cv-00392 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2018) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness after a jury trial is denied because substantial evidence supports the jury finding; plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is denied because defendant’s litigation conduct, defendant’s size, closeness of the case, duration of misconduct, and lack of motivation for harm didn’t favor enhancement. | 3/8/2018 |
| BlackBerry Limited v. Nokia Corporation et al, 1-17-cv-00155 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted because pleading pre-suit willfulness by two dismissed defendants doesn’t plausibly allege pre-suit willfulness by the surviving defendant. | 3/20/2018 |
| Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation et al, 1-13-cv-00723 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2018) | Following two jury trials, plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is denied because six factors weighed against enhancement, and one factor (defendant’s attempts to conceal the misconduct) favored enhancement. | 3/30/2018 |
| Johns Hopkins University v. Alcon Laboratories Inc. et al, 1-15-cv-00525 (D. Del. April. 5, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding pre- and post-suit willfulness. | 4/5/2018 |
| Liqwd, Inc. et al v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al, 1-17-cv-00014 (D. Del. April 10, 2018) | Magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because the complaint plausibly shows that defendant knew of the patent, knew that the accused product would infringe, and continued to sell its product. | 4/10/2018 |
| Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research v. Donghee America, Inc. et al, 1-16-cv-00187 (D. Del. May 22, 2018) | Defendant’s summary judgment motion of no pre-suit willfulness is granted because there is no evidence of egregiousness; and summary judgment of no post-suit willfulness is granted because plaintiff did not seek a preliminary injunction and defendant asserted reasonable defenses. | 5/22/2018 |
| Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-01082 (D. Del. May 29, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because although plaintiff wasn’t required to plead egregiousness, plaintiff did not sufficiently plead knowledge of the patent. | 5/29/2018 |
| Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 1-15-cv-01031 (D. Del. Jun. 28, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there are genuine issues of fact: there is evidence from which a jury could find that defendant acted despite a risk of infringement that was either actually known or so obvious it should have been known. | 6/28/2018 |
| Genedics, LLC v. Meta Company, 1-17-cv-01062 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because a complaint need not plead facts showing egregiousness to survive a motion to dismiss. | 8/21/2018 |
| Nox Medical ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc., 1-15-cv-00709 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willful infringement, Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because of Defendant’s good faith belief in invalidity and the closeness of the case. Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because a reasonable jury could’ve concluded the Defendant’s infringement was willful based on defendant’s post-issuance conduct. | 8/11/2018 |
| Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al, 1-17-cv-01646 (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff has plausibly alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, and that defendant continued to sell products that infringed the patents. Egregiousness isn’t required at the pleadings. | 9/7/2018 |
| bioMerieux, S.A. et al v. Hologic Inc., et al, 1-18-cv-00021 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff’s allegations are sufficiently plausible, and egregiousness isn’t required at the pleading stage. | 9/25/2018 |
| Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc. et al, 1-17-cv-01086 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff has sufficiently alleged knowledge of the asserted patents. | 11/1/2018 |
| University of Massachusetts Medical School et al v. L’Oreal SA et al, 1-17-cv-00868 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff has sufficiently pled that defendant knew of the patents and knew that selling the accused products constituted infringement. | 11/13/2018 |
| Groove Digital, Inc. v. King.com, Ltd. et al, 1-18-cv-00836 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because the complaint alleges only post-filing knowledge of the alleged infringement. | 11/26/2018 |
| KOM Software Inc. v. NetApp, Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-00160 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant obtained knowledge of the patents and has continued infringement despite that knowledge. | 11/26/2018 |
| Nox Medical ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc., 1-15-cv-00709 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because of defendant’s likely good faith belief of invalidity and the strength of defendant’s case. | 12/7/2018 |
| IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., 1-18-cv-00452 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff’s allegations do not support a finding that defendant knew its conduct was infringing. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-suit willfulness claim is denied because there is no requirement that plaintiff plead facts beyond knowledge of the patents to survive a motion to dismiss. | 1/25/2019 |
| Groove Digital, Inc. v. Jam City, Inc., 1-18-cv-01331 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff plausibly alleges that defendant had knowledge of the asserted patent. | 1/29/2019 |
| Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., 1-15-cv-00542 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because of insufficient evidence of egregious conduct. There is no evidence that shows the defendants subjectively believed they were infringing a valid patent. Defendants raised reasonable defenses to the plaintiff’s claims of infringement and their declining to adopt non-infringing alternatives is not unreasonable, much less egregious, in light of those asserted defenses. | 2/19/2019 |
| Deere & Company v. AGCO Corporation, et al., 1-18-cv-00827 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s enhancement claim is partially granted as to some patents because a letter sent to one corporate defendant was not a sufficient basis to allege willful conduct. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-suit enhancement claim is partially denied as to other patents because the complaint sufficiently identified the patents and the accused infringing products. | 2/19/2019 |
| Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Smartmatic USA Corporation, 1-18-cv-01259 (D. Del. Mar. 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that plaintiff gave defendant notice of its infringement, and that defendant offered to sell its accused product after this notice. | 3/5/2019 |
| Zimmer Surgical, Inc. et al v. Stryker Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-00679 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of genuine dispute of material pact as to post-filing conduct. A reasonable jury could find that defendant continued to sell the accused product without efforts to design around the patent, while asserting knowingly unreasonable defenses. | 3/7/2019 |
| VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 1-18-cv-00966 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s enhancement claim and strike its willfulness allegations is granted as to one patent because the complaint cannot serve as the basis for defendant’s actionable knowledge. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the enhancement claim is granted as to other patents because the complaint only alleges willful blindness to each patent’s existence not infringement. | 3/26/2019 |
| 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., 1-18-cv-00886 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff’s filing of an IPR shows defendant’s knowledge of the patent, and plaintiff alleges that defendant’s product functions similarly to plaintiff’s. | 3/29/2019 |
| Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al, 1-15-cv-00634 (D. Del. Apr. 24, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for treble damages following a jury trial of no willfulness is denied because the jury found no willful infringement. | 4/24/2019 |
| Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 1-15-cv-01031 (D. Del. May 2, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict is denied because one patent was invalidated by the PTAB, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and because damages are adequate to compensate plaintiff for the other patent. | 5/2/2019 |
| TC Technology LLC v. Sprint Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-00153 (D. Del. May 31,, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because an email offering for sale patents, including the asserted patent, related to the technology does not sufficiently show actual knowledge of the infringement or willful blindness. | 5/31/2019 |
| Express Mobile, Inc. v. DreamHost, LLC, 1-18-cv-01173 (D. Del. Jun. 18, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted. The complaint allege only post-filing knowledge of the alleged infringement. | 6/18/2019 |
| RainDance Technologies, Inc. et al v. 10X Genomics, Inc., 1-15-cv-00152 (D. Del. July 3, 2019) | Defendant’s renewed JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. Based on testimony evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that defendant knew its customers would use the accused products in a manner that infringed the asserted patents. | 7/3/2019 |
| CFL Technologies LLC v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-01445 (D. Del. Jul. 8, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim for failing to allege knowledge is granted. Three of the patents in suit were held unenforceable pre-Therasense, and the facts that led to those judgments are largely identical to the facts underlying prosecution of the fourth patent in suit. | 7/8/2019 |
| Siemens Industry, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation d/b/a Wabtec Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-00284 (D. Del. July 18, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because only 4 factors favor enhancement while defendant’s litigation conduct, closeness of the case, and lack of motivation for harm strongly disfavor enhancement. | 7/18/2019 |
| Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc., et. al., 1-08-cv-00309 (D. Del. July 22, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the closeness of the case, lack of motivation to harm, and lack of concealment of misconduct favored against enhancement. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports that defendant intended for its products to enter the United States knowing that its products infringe. | 7/22/2019 |
| RainDance Technologies, Inc. et al v. 10X Genomics, Inc., 1-15-cv-00152 (D. Del. July 24, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the lack of evidence of copying, litigation conduct, and strength of defendant’s claims favored against enhancement. | 7/24/2019 |
| Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals LP v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC et al, 1-17-cv-01390 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims because plaintiff sufficiently alleged knowledge. Although plaintiff did not send defendant a letter, such explicit pre-suit allegation is not absolutely required. Based on what’s alleged, it’s plausible that defendant, sophisticated competitors of plaintiff with a longstanding significant insight into the patents and the technology, consciously and deliberately infringed those patents in the relevant time frame. Moreover, defendant did not stop engaging in the allegedly infringing conduct after receiving the complaint. | 8/7/2019 |
| Bayer HealthCare, LLC v. Baxalta Incorporated, et al, 1-16-cv-01122 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on willfulness is denied because plaintiff did not show that defendant knew the accused product infringed. There was insufficient evidence to show that defendant knew the accused product met a specific claim limitation. | 8/26/2019 |
| CG Technology Development, LLC v. William Hill US Holdco, Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-00533 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss pliantiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted. The only alleged basis for knowledge of infringement is defendant’ CEO’s involvement with plaintiff’s patent portfolio years ago. It is not plausible that, based on stale knowledge of unrelated patents, the CEO knew defendant’s accused products were infringing. | 8/28/2019 |
| Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al, 1-16-cv-00638 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the willfulness instruction was not erroneous. Moreover substantial evidence supports the jury verdict, including knowledge of the infringement by defendant and knowledge of a non-infringing alternative. | 9/10/2019 |
| Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al, 1-16-cv-00638 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury trial of willfulness is denied because the lack of copying, defendants’ litigation behavior, lack of a close case, lack of a motivation for harm, and lack of concealment favored against enhancement. | 9/12/2019 |
| 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc., 1-19-cv-00862 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommended denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims because plaintiff sufficiently alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges specific dates by which defendant knew or should have known of the infringement; and it further alleges that defendant monitors plaintiff’s patent filings. | 10/30/2019 |
| NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 1-19-cv-01031 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommends partially granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff did not sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge. Although the complaint alleges negotiations between the defendant and the inventor, those negotiations pre-date the issuance the of the patents. The magistrate judge recommends partially denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because the complaint sufficiently alleges post-suit willfulness. | 10/31/2019 |
| Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. et al v. SimpliSafe, Inc., 1-19-cv-00480 (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim. Defendant has provided no support for the contention that one cannot willfully infringe a patent as an indirect infringer. The amended complaint sufficiently alleges direct infringement by defendant’s customers and induced infringement by defendant. | 11/15/2019 |
Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the District of Delaware post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| Chalumeau Power Systems LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent, et. al., 1-11-cv-01175 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement theories and claim construction positions were frivolous, and because plaintiff filed the suit solely to extort a settlement fee. | 9/12/2014 |
| Summit Data Systems LLC v. EMC Corporation, et. al., 1-10-cv-00749 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2014) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff entered into a license two months before filing suit, in which plaintiff forfeited the right to pursue its theory of infringement against the defendant, and because plaintiff’s motivation was to extract a quick settlement. | 9/25/2014 |
| Bayer CropScience AG, et. al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 1-12-cv-00256 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2014) | Magistrate Judge recommended that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s arguments were exceptionally weak and implausible, and because of the lack of pre-suit diligence. | 12/22/2014 |
| Vehicle Operation Technologies LLC v. Ford Motor Company, 1-13-cv-00539 (D. Del. July 1, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because a reasonable pre-suit investigation would have revealed that the suit was meritless, and because plaintiff’s claim construction was frivolous and objectively unreasonable. | 7/1/2015 |
| Magnetar Technologies Corp, et. al. v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc., et. al., 1-07-cv-00127 (D. Del. July 21, 2015) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s arguments were objectively unreasonable regarding the inventorship of an asserted patent, and because plaintiff’s unreasonably relied on expert testimony that lacked any reliable methodology. | 7/21/2015 |
| In re: Rembrandt Technologies LP Patent Litigation, 1-07-md-01848 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff improperly compensated fact witnesses, failed to prevent document spoliation, and should have known that some patents were unenforceable. | 9/4/2015 |
| Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada) et al v. Dow Chemical Company, 1-13-cv-01601 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff filed suit seeking relief from prior judgment with theories that were not even plausible. | 9/30/2015 |
| Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 1-12-cv-01285 (D. Del. Dec. 28, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s improper motivations with its amended infringement contentions, and because of plaintiff’s reliance on a meritless claim construction. | 12/28/2015 |
| Joao Bock Transaction Systems LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates Inc., 1-12-cv-01138 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff pursued litigation so inefficiently as to be objectively unreasonable and burdensome for defendant and the court, initially alleging 87 accused products and later shifting infringement positions. | 3/31/2016 |
| Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 1-14-cv-00448 (D. Del. May 31, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement claims rested on patents whose validity were objectively unreasonable under section 101 case law. | 5/31/2016 |
| SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 1-13-cv-01534 (D. Del. June 1, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of the jury finding of willfulness and because defendant’s litigation strategies created a substantial amount of work for plaintiff and for the court, work that was needlessly repetitive or irrelevant or frivolous. | 6/1/2017 |
| Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., 1-18-cv-00444 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s litigation position was exceptionally weak. Plaintiff was unreasonable in suing on a patent clearly ineligible under Alice. | 3/18/2019 |
| Cosmo Technologies Ltd et al v Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., 1-15-cv-00164 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2019) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s failure to perform the necessary tests under the court’s claim construction, and because of the timing and unreasonableness of plaintiff’s decision to drop the number of asserted claims from 35 to 2 just before trial. | 3/27/2019 |
Excluding Unqualified Damages Experts:
Below are issued decisions on damages experts qualifications from the District of Delaware between June 13, 2016 and November 7, 2019.
| Case | Result | Notes | Date |
| SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 1-13-cv-01534 (D. Del. April 11, 2016) | Not excluded | Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert regarding apportionment as unqualified is denied; defendant is free to challenge the expert’s conclusions and analysis on cross-examination. | 4/11/2016 |
| CR Bard Inc. et al v. AngioDynamics Inc., 1-15-cv-00218 (D. Del. June 26, 2018) | Not excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s experts regarding non-infringing alternatives is denied because the experts are qualified, and mere disagreement goes to the weight of the evidence. | 6/26/2018 |
| Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 1-16-cv-00453 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2018) | Not excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s expert regarding noninfringing alternatives as unqualified is denied because a damages expert may testify about noninfringing alternatives, to the extent that her testimony represents evidence she relied upon (from a third party and the inventors) in forming her opinion about damages. | 8/28/2018 |
| Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., 1-15-cv-00542 (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2019) | Not excluded | Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s expert as unqualified is denied. The expert is a managing director of a firm providing financial products and services related to intellectual property and has provided financial and economic consulting services for over thirty years. She has conducted valuation, licensing negotiations, and strategic management studies involving intellectual property and has determined reasonable royalty and lost profits damages for patent infringement and analyzed damages in other types of intellectual property disputes. | 3/12/2019 |
Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:
Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the District of Delaware concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.
Knowledge of the grandparent patent provides no actual notice for pre-issuance damages (Rosebud v. Adobe)
Attorney fees warranted where Plaintiff’s position was contradicted by the evidence and by its own witnesses (Bayer v. Dow)
Equity action to set aside judgment is exceptional because of meritless allegations (Nova Chemicals v. Dow)
Fees awarded because plaintiff continued with meritless eligibility arguments after Alice (Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath & Beyond)
Losing a summary judgment motion does not automatically make the plaintiff’s case exceptional (Honeywell v. Fujifilm)
Denial of preliminary injunction is vacated as it was based on a flawed claim construction (Liqwd v. L’Oreal)
NPE case not exceptional because plaintiff had good faith positions and did not delay in its litigation tactics (Sarif Biomedical v. Brainlab)
It was error to allow all requested fees without causal connection between the misconduct and the award (Rembrandt v. Comcast)
Willfulness and enhancement vacated, but exceptionality finding affirmed (SRI International v. Cisco)
Willfulness, enhancement, and attorney fees vacated (SRI International v. Cisco)