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 …
Wbip v. Kohler was decided on July 19, 2016 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that defendant Kohler infringed all the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not invalid, and that Kohler’s infringement was willful (under Seagate’s clear and convincing standard). After the verdict, the district …
Mankes v. Vivid Seats was decided on April 22, 2016 on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina. There, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, finding no direct infringement. The district court then denied Vivid Seats request for attorney fees, finding the case not exceptional. …
Convolve v. Compaq was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court granted summary judgment of no infringement, and that liability was precluded by intervening rights arising from a December 2, 2008 substantive amendment to the asserted claims. Plaintiff Convolve appealed. The Federal Circuit …
Site Update v. CBS is a nonprecedential case decided on February 1, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, after plaintiff Site Update and defendant Newegg agreed to dismiss the claims between them, the district court, applying Octane Fitness, denied Newegg’s request for attorney’s fees under § 285. Newegg appealed. The …
Edge v. Aguila was a nonprecedential case decided on December 21, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. There, plaintiff-Edge sued Defendant-Aguila for patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. After the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the district court granted Edge’s motion for preliminary injunction. Aguila appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …
Akamai v. Limelight was decided on November 16, 2015 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that plaintiff Akamai’s patent (claiming a method for delivering content over the internet) was not invalid and was infringed by defendant Limelight. To prove damages, Akamai relied on Dr. Ugone’s expert testimony, …
Nordock v. Systems was decided on September 29, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and that the patent was not invalid. Nordock’s damages expert testified that System’s net profit for the sale of the infringing items was …
M-I v. FPUSA is a nonprecedential case decided on September 24, 2015 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court preliminarily enjoined defendant FPUSA from promoting, selling, or renting a system that infringed one or more claims of plaintiff M-I’s patent. FPUSA appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …
Summit 6 v. Samsung was decided on September 21, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The patent relates to the processing and uploading of digital photos. The jury found plaintiff Summit’s patent not invalid and infringed, and awarded Summit $15 million in damages. Summit settled with another defendant, RIM, before trial. …