Lost-profits damages are appropriate “whenever there is a reasonable probability that, but for the infringement, the patentee would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.” Versata Software v. SAP. A showing under the four-factor Panduit test establishes the required causation. These factors include: “(1) demand for the …
WesternGeco v. ION was decided by the Supreme Court on June 21, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. At trial, the jury found defendant ION liable and awarded plaintiff WesternGeco $12.5 million in royalties and $93.4 million in lost profits. WesternGeco claimed it was entitled to lost profits after “it …
Stone Basket v. Cook Medical was decided on June 11, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. After the PTAB cancelled all asserted claims following an IPR, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendant Cook then moved for attorney fees. The district court denied the motion. Cook appealed. The …
Huang v. Huawei Technologies is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After serving invalidity contentions, defendant Huawei served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter on pro se plaintiff Huang, asserting that Huang’s “claims were baseless and that a pre-suit investigation would have revealed …
Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” The Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health laid out the standard for exceptionality: an exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the …
XY v. Trans Ova Genetics was decided on May 23, 2018 on appeal from the District of Colorado. Plaintiff XY sued defendant Trans Ova for patent infringement and breach of contract. The jury found that Trans Ova breached the contract and willfully infringed XY’s patent, and awarded XY $4,585,000 for the …
Ultratec v. Sorenson is a nonprecedential case decided on May 18, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury awarded plaintiff Ultratec a “total royalty payment of approximately $5,443,485.” The district court concluded on JMOL that there was no willfulness because plaintiff could not meet the objective prong of Seagate, …
Endo v. Teva is a nonprecedential case decided on May 16, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court found all asserted claims by plaintiff Endo against defendant Teva not invalid, and found all but two asserted claims infringed. The district court then issued a permanent injunction against …
A party seeking an injunction must make a clear showing that it is at risk of irreparable harm. In cases where “the accused product includes many features of which only one (or a small minority) infringe,” a finding that the patentee will be at risk of irreparable harm “does not …
AIDS Healthcare v. Gilead was decided on May 11, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory defendant Gilead has patents or is a licensee of patents on a particular antiviral agent used to treat AIDS. Declaratory plaintiff Healthcare provides medical care to persons afflicted with AIDS. Healthcare filed a declaratory judgment …