Supreme Court holds that laches can’t bar damages for a suit brought within the limitations period

SCA Hygiene v. First Quality was decided by the Supreme Court on March 21, 2017 on appeal from the Western District of Kentucky. There, the district court granted defendant First Quality’s summary judgment motion of laches and equitable estoppel. A Federal Circuit panel affirmed as to laches, but reversed as to …

Jury award in design-patent case vacated in light of Apple v. Samsung

Nordock v. Systems is a nonprecedential case decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and awarded Nordock $46,825 as a reasonable royalty, indicating that Systems’ profits were $0. The …

No further lost-profits apportionment needed when applying the Panduit factors

Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA was decided on March 16, 2017 on appeal from the District of Oregon. The patents concerned simulation/emulation technology. After plaintiff Mentor sued defendant EVE for patent infringement, EVE sued Mentor for a declaratory judgment that a non-asserted patent was invalid. Mentor then counterclaimed for willful infringement of …

Preliminary injunction upheld because the loss of a potential lifelong customer is irreparable

Metalcraft of Mayville v. Toro was decided on February 16, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The patent relates to a system for ride-on lawnmowers. The district court granted plaintiff Metalcraft a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant Toro from making, using, selling, and offering to sell lawnmowers equipped with …

Pre-patent consumer confusion, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill support irreparable harm

Tinnus v. Telebrands was decided on January 24, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Tinnus a preliminary injunction, affirming a Magistrage Judge’s finding that the claims were likely infringed, were not vulnerable on indefiniteness or obviousness grounds, and that Tinnus made a showing …

Permanent injunction isn’t too broad despite reaching products that do not necessarily infringe

United Construction v. Tile Tech was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. The patent concerned a support pedestal adapted to support surface tiles to form an elevated building surface. After “a series of delays, missed deadlines, and other procedural missteps by [defendant] Tile Tech,” …

No inequitable conduct because the examiner had available the info from the withheld docs

U.S. Water v. Novozymes was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The patents relate to the production of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from milled grain. The district court held the asserted claims invalid as inherently anticipated, and denied defendant Novozymes’s summary judgment motion as to inequitable conduct. The …

District court’s JMOL of nonwillfulness is vacated for relying on Seagate’s objective prong

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 …

In calculating attorney fees, the trial court should use market rates of the forum state

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 …

Objective reasonableness isn’t dispositive in a willfulness inquiry, but is still relevant to enhancement

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 …