Federal Circuit on Damages and other Remedies

Tracking the landscape of patent remedies
 
Federal Circuit on Damages and other Remedies

Jury royalty awarding plaintiff 71% of infringer’s per-unit profit is supported by the evidence

Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. Pre-trial, the district court granted defendant Kaz summary judgment of no willful infringement because its invalidity contentions were objectively reasonable. At trial, the jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid, …

No declaratory jurisdiction where invalidity issue would not resolve the underlying contractual dispute

AbbVie v. MedImmune was decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. A 1995 agreement between the parties licensed AbbVie to practice the ‘516 patent, among others. AbbVie did not practice the patent at the time. Under the agreement, AbbVie was to pay royalties on the sales …

Enhanced damages vacated because district court did not particularly explain the basis for trebling the award

WCM v. IPS is a nonprecedential opinion decided on February 5, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiff WCM sued defendant IPS in the District of Colorado for two patents which had issued within the prior month. WCM then voluntarily dismissed the Colorado suit and refiled the same complaint in …

Irreparable harm shown where risk averse customers would perceive that plaintiff no longer had an exclusive license

MACOM Tech. v. Infineon was decided on January 29, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The parties entered into an agreement that allowed plaintiff MACOM and defendant Infineon to share rights to practice licensed patents within a general “Field of Use.” The agreement further defined an “Exclusive Field” …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2017

2017 was a busy year for patent remedies. Except for the Supreme Court decision on laches, most of the action happened in the Federal Circuit. The graph below shows how many times each decision has been cited by another court. It’s updated as to January 26, 2018.   1. Laches …

Denial of preliminary injunction is vacated as it was based on a flawed claim construction

Liqwd v. L’Oreal is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 16, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The asserted patent described a method of bleaching hair by applying to the hair a particular mixture. The district court denied Liqwd’s motion for a preliminary injunction after claim construction. Because the adopted …

Sales of the entire product appropriate as the royalty base if patentee properly apportions the royalty rate

Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton was decided on January 12, 2018 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. The invention related to a lawn mower having an improved device for directing airflow and grass clippings during operation. The district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted claim 1 was not invalid …

Losing a summary judgment motion does not automatically make the plaintiff’s case exceptional

Honeywell v. Fujifilm is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 11, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court found plaintiff Honeywell’s patent invalid on summary judgment. The court thereafter denied defendant Fujifilm’s motion for attorney fees. Fujifilm appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney fees. The …

If the smallest salable unit has non-infringing features, the patentee must further apportion the royalty

Finjan v. Blue Coat was decided on January 10, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. A jury found defendant Blue Coat liable for infringement of four patents (the ‘633, ‘731, ‘844, and ‘968) owned by plaintiff Finjan, and awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The patents related to internet …

Patent jury awards in 2017: Eastern Texas leading with most and highest verdicts

This post attempts to collect and present patent jury verdicts rendered in 2017. Only jury awards are included (no bench awards, arbitration awards, settlements, or the like).   Figure 1: The median patent jury verdict  in 2017 was $5,845,578. The low was $123,650, and the high was $235,510,000. There were  noted …