Enplas Display v. Seoul Semiconductor was decided on November 19, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory plaintiff Enplas filed an declaratory action against declaratory defendant Seoul Semiconductor on two patents. Seoul Semiconductor counterclaimed, asserting infringement and seeking damages. On summary judgment, the district court held that no reasonable juror could …
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. Patent Jury Verdicts: Below are the patent jury verdicts from the District of Delaware between 2015 …
This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Bard Peripheral Vascular and WL Gore & Associates. The post will not cover patent invalidity decisions from the USPTO or the district court. The dispute started in 2003 with a complaint by Bard against Gore in the District of Arizona and ended …
This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The post will not cover patent invalidity decisions from the USPTO or the district court. The dispute started on April 15, 2011, with a complaint by Apple against Samsung in the Northern District of California, …
“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 …
Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor was originally decided on July 3, 2018, and modified on September 20, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In the modified opinion, language requiring that the patentee, to apply to entire market value rule, present evidence that the other features “are not relevant to consumer choice” and “did not …
“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 …
“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 …
“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 …
“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 …