After the alleged infringer produces unmarked products, the patentee has the burden to show they’re not covered

Arctic Cat v. Bombadier was decided on December 7, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Before trial, defendant Bombadier unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on several issues, including that plaintiff Artic Cat’s licensee failed to mark its products. The jury found the asserted patents not invalid, found willful infringement by …

Lost profits award reversed because of non-infringing substitute; permanent injunction then vacated

Presidio v. American Technical Ceramics was decided on November 21, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of California. The invention concerned capacitors for storing and releasing energy. The district court granted defendant ATC’s motion for summary judgment on absolute intervening rights. The jury then returned a verdict of direct and induced infringement, …

Patent owner’s lost profits, willfulness finding, and enhanced damages affirmed

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. …

Federal Circuit on finding willful infringement after Halo

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 …

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 …

District court decisions on willfulness and enhancement post Halo

After finding willful infringement, a court may enhance damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. From 2007-16, In Re Seagate was the law for finding willfulness. Willfulness under Seagate first required the patentee showing that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. After this showing of objective recklessness, the …

What We Learned About Patent Remedies In 2016 (as published on Law360)

Link to article on Law360.  2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …

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 …

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 …

Jury finding of willfulness doesn’t per se support enhancing damages or awarding attorney fees

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 …