Alfred E. Mann Foundation v. Cochlear was decided on November 17, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, the district court entered judgment finding claims of one asserted patent infringed and claims of another patent invalid for indefiniteness. The jury found that defendant Cochlear’s infringement was willful under …
Large Audience Display v. Tennman is a nonprecedential case decided on October 20, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. There, after the PTO issued an IPR certificate cancelling all of Plaintiff Large Audience’s claims asserted in the district court, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendants …
WesternGeco v. ION was decided on September 21, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of Texas. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court in light of Halo v. Pulse. At the district court, the jury found infringement and no invalidity as to all asserted claims, and awarded Plaintiff-WesternGeco lost profits …
Stryker v. Zimmer was decided on September 12, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Michigan. There, a jury found plaintiff-Stryker’s patents valid and infringed, awarded $70 million in lost profits, and found that defendant-Zimmer willfully infringed under the then-controlling Seagate standard. The district court then issued an order rejecting Zimmer’s motion …
In this post, I will analyze the balance of the hardships prong for a post-eBay injunction. Injunction elements A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show (1) that it has suffered irreparable harm; (2) that remedies available at law (monetary damages) are inadequate to compensate for the harm; (3) that …
Asia Vital v. Asetek was decided on September 8, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the district court dismissed Asia Vital’s declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After bringing suits against other competitors, Asetek sent Asia Vital a letter, accusing it of manufacturing an infringing …
This post will delve into the irreparable harm prong of the injunction analysis post-eBay. Injunction elements A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show (1) that it has suffered irreparable harm; (2) that remedies available at law (monetary damages) are inadequate to compensate for the harm; (3) that the balance of hardships …
Because of the spate of recent Federal Circuit cases on the attorney-fees standard, I will write a post on the current state of the law of exceptionality under § 285. Supreme Court Section 285 of the Patent Act provides that a district “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney …
Halo v. Pulse was decided by the Federal Circuit on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district …
Innovention v. MGA is a nonprecedential case decided on August 5, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of Louisiana. There, the district court, after a jury trial finding willfulness, awarded enhanced damages (on Seagate’s clear and convincing standard for willfulness) and attorney fees for defendant MGA’s infringement. The Federal Circuit …