Apple Inc. v. Samsung was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, the jury awarded Plaintiff-Apple $119,625,000 for Defendant-Samsung’s infringement of three of five asserted patents. Following the verdict, the district court denied Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, finding that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. Apple …
Versata v. SAP was decided on May 1, 2013. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on lost profits. The patented invention related to organizing pricing information. The jury found that defendant SAP infringed plaintiff Versata’s asserted claims, and awarded $260 million in lost profits and …
Monsanto v. Bowman was decided on September 21, 2011 on appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). “Since 1996, Monsanto has marketed and sold .. soybean seeds under its own brands, and licenses its technology to seed …
I4I v. Microsoft was decided on March 9, 2010 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved a host of issues, but this post will only deal with the injunction. In the case, the jury found that defendant Microsoft willfully infringed the asserted claims of the patent. After trial, …
Canon v. GCC is a non-precedential opinion decided on January 25, 2008 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court granted plaintiff Canon a preliminary injunction. Defendant GCC appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction grant. A patent owner seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a reasonable likelihood …
Gart v. Logitech was decided on August 21, 2001 on appeal from the Central District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In 1989, prior to the issuance of the patent-in-suit, plaintiff Gart approached defendant Logitech to discuss licensing the …
SRI International v. Advanced Technology Laboratories was decided on October 23, 1997 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In May 1986, plaintiff SRI sent a letter to defendant Advanced Technology Laboratories (ATL) offering a non-exclusive license. …