Georgetown Rail v. Holland was decided on August 1, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that defendant Holland willfully infringed plaintiff Georgetown Rail’s patent and award lost profits. The district court then denied Holland’s motion for JMOL, and enhanced damages based on the finding of willfulness. …
Alfred T. Giuliano v. SanDisk is a non-precedential case decided on July 27, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after Plaintiffs brought a Walker Process antitrust class action against SanDisk, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SanDisk because the record did not show evidence sufficient to raise …
Regeneron v. Merus was decided on July 27, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held the asserted patent invalid because of plaintiff Regeneron’s inequitable conduct during prosecution. The district court first found that Regeneron withheld four references from the USPTO that were material. (The withheld references …
After a finding of willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. This post deals primarily with finding willfulness, and not enhancing damages. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. In June 2016, Halo v. Pulse rejected the Seagate test and established new …
Genband v. Metaswitch was decided on July 10, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after a jury found that Defendant Metaswitch infringed claims of Plaintiff Genband’s patents, and that the claims were not invalid, Genband moved for a permanent injunction. The district court denied the request because “Genband …
AdjustaCam v. Newegg was decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, Plaintiff AdjustaCam sued Defendant Newegg and dozens of other defendants for patent infringement, voluntarily dismissing most defendants early in the litigation. Though AdjustaCam continued to litigate against Newegg through a Markman order and extended …
Parallel Networks v. Kayak is a non-precedential case decided on July 5, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after granting Defendants Kayak’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, the district court denied their motion for attorney fees, finding nothing exceptional about either Plaintiff Parallel Networks’ infringement theory or …
Chaffin v. Braden was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. There, the district court granted defendant Braden’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, adopting Braden’s claim construction. The court subsequently found the case exceptional and awarded attorney fees to Braden. Chaffin appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed …
Nantkwest v. Matal was decided on June 23, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the USPTO rejected Nantkwest’s patent application on obviousness grounds. The PTAB affirmed the rejection, and Nantkwest appealed to the district court under 35 U.S.C. § 145. After prevailing at the district court, the USPTO …
Prism v. T-Mobile is a nonprecedential case decided on June 23, 2017. There, after a jury verdict of non-infringement, the district court denied plaintiff Prism’s motions for new trial and for JMOL of infringement, and denied defendant T-Mobile’s motions for attorney fees and for patent-ineligibility under § 101. Both parties …