Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. All four asserted patents were standard essential. Before trial the district court denied ALE’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chrimar’s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty. A jury found …
When there has been a failure to mark a patented product, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) forecloses damages for infringement “except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing …
Energy Heating v. Heat On-The-Fly was decided on May 4, 2018 on appeal from the District of North Dakota. Before trial, the district court granted summary judgment in declaratory plaintiff Energy’s favor, dismissing some of declaratory defendant Heat’s infringement claims, and finding Heat’s asserted patent obvious. The jury found liability under …
This post deals with recovering total profits under 35 U.S.C. §289 for design patent infringement. Under Section 289, a design patent infringer is “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit,” that is, all the profit made from the manufacture or sale “of the article of manufacture …
This opinion was superseded. Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on May 1, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Texas Advanced sued defendant Renesas for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Before trial, the district court granted Renesas’s summary judgment motion …
Gilead v. Merck was decided on April 25, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After the jury ruled for Merck and awarded $200 million in damages, the district court held a bench trial on Gilead’s unclean hands defense. The district court ruled for Gilead, “finding both pre-litigation business misconduct and litigation …
After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under Section 284 of the Patent Act. This post deals primarily with the role of the judge and the jury in the willfulness and enhancement determination. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that …
John Bean v. Morris & Associates was decided on April 19, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas. In 2002, after plaintiff John Bean had contacted defendant Morris’ customers alleging infringement, Morris sent John Bean a letter notifying John Bean that its patent was invalid based on multiple prior …
Raniere v. Microsoft was decided on April 18, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed plaintiff Raniere’s action with prejudice for lack of standing for Raniere’s failure to show ownership interest. Defendants, including Microsoft, moved for attorney fees under §285. The district court award fees and costs …
Sarif Biomedical v. Brainlab is a nonprecedential case decided on March 21, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. There were concurrent PTAB and district court litigations, but the PTAB litigation terminated before the district court litigation. Following claim construction adverse to plaintiff Sarif at the district court, the parties jointly …