Pre-patent consumer confusion, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill support irreparable harm

Tinnus v. Telebrands was decided on January 24, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Tinnus a preliminary injunction, affirming a Magistrage Judge’s finding that the claims were likely infringed, were not vulnerable on indefiniteness or obviousness grounds, and that Tinnus made a showing …

District court decisions on willfulness and enhancement post Halo

After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. After this showing of objective recklessness, the …

Parties seeking attorney fees more frequently after Octane Fitness, but they are not more successful

This posts analyzes trends at the district courts pre and post Octane Fitness (decided April 29, 2014). The pre-Octane-Fitness period runs from March 2011 to April 29, 2014. And the post-Octane-Fitness  period runs from April 30, 2014 to Jun 2, 2017. The data includes only attorney-fees determinations under § 285. The motion granted category includes both …

Federal Circuit on finding a party in contempt for a redesigned product that violates an injunction

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 …

After frivolous appeal, appellant’s counsel held jointly and severally liable for fees and double costs

Walker v. Health International was decided on January 6, 2017 on appeal from the District of Colorado. There, the district court awarded defendant Health attorney fees and costs for plaintiff Walker’s vexatious actions in continuing to litigate after the parties settled all claims. Walker appealed. Health claimed the appeal was frivolous, and …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2016 (as published on Law360)

Link to article on Law360.  2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …

Permanent injunction isn’t too broad despite reaching products that do not necessarily infringe

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,” …

No inequitable conduct because the examiner had available the info from the withheld docs

U.S. Water v. Novozymes was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The patents relate to the production of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from milled grain. The district court held the asserted claims invalid as inherently anticipated, and denied defendant Novozymes’s summary judgment motion as to inequitable conduct. The …

A past dismissal with prejudice does not preclude an injunction on the dismissed conduct

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 …

Supreme Court: § 289’s “article of manufacture” covers a component of the end product

Samsung v. Apple was decided by the Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million, the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed …