Attorney fees reversed because plaintiff was no longer the prevailing party

Imperium v. Samsung is a nonprecedential case decided on January 31, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After a jury verdict against defendant Samsung, the district court concluded that plaintiff Imperium was entitled to attorney fees as a prevailing party. Samsung appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the attorney fees …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2018

2018 was a big year for patent remedies, the most important decision being the Supreme Court’s WesternGeco v. ION, which opened the door to foreign damages for patent infringement. 1. A Patentee may recover foreign lost profits for infringement under Section 271(f)(2) Under Section 271(f)(2) of the Patent Act, it …

Plaintiff did not intend to deceive the PTO in misdiscribing a figure

Barry v. Medtronic was decided on January 24, 2019 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found for plaintiff Barry and awarded $15,095,970 for domestic infringement of one patent and $2,625,210 for domestic infringement of another patent. After trial, the district court denied defendant Medtronic’s challenges regarding induced infringement, …

Stipulated reasonable royalty affirmed and lost profits remanded after intervening invalidity of some claims at the PTAB

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 …

Patent jury awards in 2018: Delaware takes over with most and highest jury verdicts

This post attempts to collect and present patent jury verdicts rendered in 2018. Only jury awards are included (no bench awards, arbitration awards, settlements, etc.).   Figure 1: The median patent jury verdict  in 2018 was $4,300,000. The low was $15,775, and the high was $538,641,656. There were 33 noted patent verdicts …

Federal Circuit on applying the Read Factors for enhanced damages: infringer’s motivation for harm

“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 …

Federal Circuit on applying the Read Factors for enhanced damages: remedial action by the infringer

“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 …

In considering attorney fees, the district court need not resolve issues mooted by the case

Spineology v. Wright Medical was decided on December 14, 2018 on appeal from the District of Minnesota. The district court granted defendant Wright’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The district court then denied Wright’s motion for attorney fees, holding that plaintiff Spineology’s positions were not so meritless as to render …

Jury royalty relying on previous related jury verdict is affirmed

This opinion was superseded.    Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case decided on November 30, 2018 on appeal from the District of Kansas. At trial the district court permitted Sprint to introduce evidence of a jury verdict in a related case by Sprint against another defendant. The jury found that …

Preliminary injunction vacated due to erroneous construction of asserted claims

Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s is a nonprecedential case decided on November 20, 2018 on appeal from the District of New Jersey. In the first ANDA case, plaintiff Indivior sued defendant Dr. Reddy’s, alleging infringement. The district court found that Dr. Reddy’s ANDA did not infringe the asserted patent. After the judgment …