This post will organize various patent litigation decisions from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J.). The focus will be on patent infringement remedies, particularly damages and injunctions.
Below are the patent jury verdicts from the District of New Jersey between 2015 and 2019, arranged from largest to smallest. The median damages award for the period in the district is $45,000,000, and median time to verdict from complaint is 1463 days.
| Case | Amount | Judge | Verdict Date | Time to Verdict | Technology |
| Eagle View Technologies , Inc. et al v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. et al | $125,000,000 | Renee Marie Bumb | 9/25/2019 | 1463 days | Computers & Communications, Others |
| Mondis Technology Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc et al | $45,000,000 | Stanley R. Chesler | 4/12/2019 | 1386 days | Computers & Communications |
| Nite Glow Industries Inc. et al v. Central Garden & Pet Co. et al | $825,450 | Katharine S. Hayden | 6/27/2018 | 2189 days | Drugs & Medical |
Its organosulfur ingredients are under research for many years just to come up with an effective and safe medicines, you can rely on kamagra or viagra 100mg for sale. It contains aphrodisiac properties, and increases secretion unica-web.com order cialis online of milk in lactating mothers. In the case of infertility most of the doctors prefer Kamagra jelly for their patients as they are now able to cure their sexual cialis on line issue. The Sildenafil loaded pill ensures a healthy erection for a few viagra on line find out these guys minutes.
Preliminary Injunctions For Patent Infringement:
Below are issued preliminary injunctions from the District of New Jersey between January 1, 2010 to November 2019.
| Case | Enjoined Product(s) | Patent Title(s) | Irreparable Harm | Date |
| Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. et al., 2-09-cv-04638 (D.N.J. June 14, 2010) | Generic allergies drug | – Piperidine derivatives and process for their production | Plaintiff argues that it will lose market share, suffer price erosion, lose research opportunities, and lose brand recognition if the generic product is allowed on the market and later found infringing. Plaintiff further argue that defendant may not be able to pay the damages at trial. | 6/14/2010 |
| Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., 2-07-cv-04539 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2010) | Generic osteoporosis drug | – Diphosphonate derivatives, pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use;
– Method of treatment using bisphosphonic acid |
Plaintiff has shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue. Clearly, the entry of a generic competitor into the marketplace will hurt Plaintiff’s sale of its product. The phenomenon of price erosion in the pharmaceutical industry is well-known. Moreover, third-party payors control a substantial portion of Plaintiff’s sales, and that a generic entrant into the marketplace has the potential to irreversibly alter the reimbursement relationship, producing an irreparable impact on Plaintiff’s business. Plaintiff would further have to eliminate much of its sales force. | 11/10/2010 |
| Power Survey, LLC v. Premier Utility Services, LLC et al, 1-13-cv-05670 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2014) | Voltage detectors | – Apparatus and method for monitoring and controlling detection of stray voltage anomalies | There is evidence that Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, price erosion and loss of market share, as a result of Defendant’s conduct. The relevant business is relatively new and the only providers of service in this field are Plaintiff and Defendant. Without the likely infringement by Defendant, Plaintiff likely would be able to establish its market presence and create strong and lasting business relationships. Defendant has directly competed with Plaintiff and has won at least four contracts by providing a lower price, two of which were clients of Plaintiff’s. Plaintiff’s presence in the market is being harmed because Defendants can undercut the market both with a cheaper and inferior product. This may also have an adverse effect on Plaintiff’s reputation because some may assume that all of these products are of inferior quality regardless of which product they are utilizing. | 11/21/2010 |
| Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2-15-cv-03654 (D.N.J. Sept. 20, 2016) | Generic thyroid drug products | – Levothyroxine formulations | Defendant indisputably seeks to be Plaintiff’s direct competitor. Through its ANDA, it seeks to market precisely the formulation as to which Plaintiff obtained FDA approval and patent protection. The right to exclude direct competition in a limited sphere is irreparably harmed by the loss of sales and the competitive foothold that the infringer will gain. The customer base comprises a relatively small class. Those customer relations, the reputation of Plaintiff, and the purchasers’ experience with the product, are therefore of primary importance. The market clout of the customers also implies that, should the price erode as a result of infringement, a price rebound may meet stiff resistance. | 9/20/2016 |
| Curlin Medical Inc. et al v. ACTA Medical, LLC et al, 2-16-cv-02464 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2017) | Infusion pump tubing | – Curvilinear peristaltic pump having insertable tubing assembly;
– Curvilinear peristaltic pump |
Plaintiff has shown likely price erosion. There is no dispute that Defendant has sold its product to customers who would have otherwise purchased Plaintiff’s product, and that Defendant sells its product at a substantial discount. Plaintiffs have pointed to evidence that Defendant has imported at least 10,000 units of the product, and that it has sold at least 1,200 of these units. Plaintiff contend that Defendant sells its competing product for as much as 35% less than Plaintiff’s price. This suggests that, unless enjoined, Defendant is poised to take a large chunk of Plaintiff’s future sales. | 1/13/2017 |
| INDIVIOR INC. et al v. DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES S.A. et al, 2-17-cv-07111 (D.N.J. July 20, 2018) | Opioid addiction generic drug | – Sublingual and buccal film compositions | Plaintiff has shown that Plaintiff will likely lose market share to Defendant’s ANDA product once it is launched and will be unlikely to recover that share, even if that product is pulled from the market. Plaintiff’s potential cuts to research and development further support a finding of irreparable harm. | 7/20/2018 |
| Allergan Sales, LLC et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-10129 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2018) | Glaucoma and ocular hypertension generic drug | – Combination of brimonidine timolol for topical ophthalmic use
– Combination of brimonidine and timolol for topical ophthalmic use |
Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s entry would cause immediate reduction in market share and price erosion that could not be corrected even if Defendants were later forced to withdraw from the market. Plaintiffs also assert that reduction in market share would irreparably impact research and development, and damage customer goodwill. | 8/3/2018 |
Below are issued willfulness and injunction decisions from the District of New Jersey post-Halo, covering the period from June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corporation, 2-17-cv-06179 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the receipt of a detailed cease-and-desist letter, followed by continued infringement, makes plausible an inference of subjective willfulness. | 1/24/2018 |
| Nasdaq, Inc. et al v. IEX Group, Inc. et al, 3-18-cv-03014 (D.N.J. Jan. 4, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant knew of the patents years before the complaint was filed. | 1/4/2019 |
| Mondis Technology Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc et al, 2-15-cv-04431 (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following jury verdict of willfulness is denied because substantial evidence supports the verdict. There is ample evidence supporting the conclusion that defendant’s infringement through the manufacture and sale of its product was, for at least some of the period of alleged infringement, done with knowledge that defendant was infringing the asserted claims. | 9/24/2019 |
Below are issued decisions awarding Section 285 attorney fees from the District of New Jersey post-Octane Fitness, covering the period from April 29, 2014 to November 26, 2019.
| Case | Notes | Date |
| LUGUS IP LLC v. VOLVO CAR CORPORATION et al, 1-12-cv-02906 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2015) | Defendant is entitled to fees because defendant’s product could not reasonably infringe plaintiff’s patent, yet plaintiff proceeded through claim construction and summary judgment. | 3/26/2015 |
| Garfum.com Corp. v. Reflections by Ruth, 1-14-cv-05919 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff should’ve known that its claims were not patentable under Alice, and because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit after defendant filed its motion to dismiss | 3/30/2016 |
| Source Search Technologies, LLC v. Kayak.com, Inc., 1-11-cv-03388 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2016) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff should have discontinued the litigation in light of Alice after defendant filed its motion for summary judgment. | 3/31/2016 |
| Sabinsa Corporation v. Olive Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., 1-14-cv-04739 (D.N.J. May 28, 2017) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because defendant willfully infringed, failed to find new counsel on the judge’s orders, and filed a premature summary judgment motion. | 5/28/2017 |
| Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-04042 (D.N.J. April 12, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s infringement claim lacked any legal or factual support. | 4/12/2017 |
| Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-02290 (D.N.J. April 24, 2017) | Defendant is entitled to fees because of plaintiff’s unjustified maintenance of the meritless suit and its vigorous attempts to engage in overbroad discovery of highly confidential, competition information. | 4/24/2017 |
| Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., 2-05-cv-00897 (D.N.J. May 23, 2018) | Defendant is entitled to fees because plaintiff’s omissions before the PTO examiner showed bad faith, and because plaintiff took contradictory positions during the litigation. | 5/23/2018 |
| Sabinsa Corporation v. Olive Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., 3-16-cv-03321 (D.N.J. April 5, 2018) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees against defaulting defendant because the complaint shows willfulness, and because defendant ignored plaintiff’s patent rights by failing to participate in the lawsuit. | 4/5/2018 |
| Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, 1-15-cv-00369 (D.N.J. Jul. 18, 2019) | Plaintiff is entitled to fees because of defendant’s unreasonable litigation positions. Defendant made arguments at odds with the evidence presented regarding its noninfringement defense. | 7/18/2019 |
Excluding Unqualified Damages Experts:
Below are issued decisions on damages experts qualifications from the District of New Jersey between June 13, 2016 and November 7, 2019.
| Case | Result | Notes | Date |
| Warner-Lambert Compa, et al. v. Purepac Pharmaceutic, et al., 2-00-cv-02931 (D.N.J. April 8, 2011) | Excluded | Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s attorney and lobbyist expert is partially granted because the expert is not an economic or business expert, and thus s not qualified to opine on what actions any of the generic manufacturers in this case would have taken in the ‘but for’ world regarding lost profits. | 4/8/2011 |
Federal Circuit Patent Remedies Decisions:
Below are Federal Circuit decisions appealed from the District of New Jersey concerning patent remedies between September 16, 2015 and September 23, 2019.
Treble attorney fees for defending against a fraudulently obtained patent (Transweb v. 3M)
Declaratory action improper where DJ defendant’s patent ownership was contingent on prevailing in state court (First Data v. Inselberg)
Preliminary injunction vacated due to erroneous construction of asserted claims (Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s)