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 patentee then had to show that the risk of infringement was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringement. Id. The Supreme Court in Halo rejected the Seagate test as “unduly rigid,” such that the test insulated “some of the worst patent infringers from any liability for enhanced damages.” Under Halo, objective unreasonableness is no longer required to find willfulness. Rather, the “subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.” Halo.
Below are post-Halo v. Pulse district court cases dealing with willfulness and enhancement from the period June 13, 2016 to November 18, 2019. The post only contains substantive decisions on the merits regarding willfulness and enhancement claims. It does not include evidentiary motions, motions on default, or motions to amend the complaint.
| FIRST CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Mass. | Simplivity Corp. v. Springpath, Inc., No. 4:15-13345-TSH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155017, at *57-62 (D. Mass. July 15, 2016) | Defendant post-complaint conduct, if true, supports a willfulness claim |
| D. Mass. | Trs. of Bos. Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12-11935-PBS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96045, at *5 (D. Mass. July 22, 2016) | No enhancement because defendant’s conduct wasn’t sufficiently egregious |
| D. Mass. | Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc. v. Perrigo Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11640-RWZ (D. Mass. Apr. 24, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is denied because defendant’s conduct was not egregious, and the jury award was at the high end of the damages sought. |
| D. Mass. | Word to Info, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc. 1-17-cv-10054 (D. Mass. May 10, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleged knowledge of the patents: defendant cited to a plaintiff patent in patent prosecution. |
| D. Mass. | Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., Civil Action No. 10-11041-NMG (D. Mass. Jun. 26, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement is granted because the defendant at the time had “reasonable arguments as to why its conduct was noninfringing.” |
| D. Mass. | Lexington Luminance LLC v. TCL Multimedia Holdings, Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-11458 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff is not required to allege more than knowledge of the patent and of infringement. |
| D. Mass. | Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. et al v. Perrigo Company et al, 1-13-cv-11640 (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2017) | Defendant’s renewed JMOL of no willfulness is granted because no reasonable jury could have found direct infringement. |
| D. Mass. | Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al v. Rolling Optics AB, 1-14-cv-12428 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted following a jury verdict of infringement because defendant’s copying, lack of a good faith defense, duration of misconduct, and lack of remedial action favored an enhancement. Defendant “willfully sent infringing products into the U.S. market without a good faith belief in non-infringement or invalidity, and with a willful disregard for” plaintiff’s patent rights. The jury award is trebled. |
| D. Mass. | SiOnyx, LLC, et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., et al, 1-15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2018) | Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted as to 2 defendants because the evidence doesn’t show that they knew or should’ve known of the asserted patents. The motion is denied as to a third defendant because there’s a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant knew of the asserted patents, and whether it knowingly or recklessly infringed the patents. |
| D. Mass. | Nike, Inc v. Puma North America, Inc., 1-18-cv-10876 (D. Mass. Oct. 10, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff asserts that it notified defendant of the infringement on multiple occasions, and defendant continued marketing various accused products. |
| D. Mass. | SiOnyx, LLC, et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., et al, 1-15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. July 25, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the jury awarded plaintiff $0 in patent infringement damages, which cannot be trebled. Moreover, enhancement doesn’t necessarily flow from finding willfulness. |
| D. Mass. | SiOnyx, LLC, et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., et al, 1-15-cv-13488 (D. Mass. July 25, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict. The evidence showed that defendants were monitoring plaintiffs’ related antecedent patents and applications. |
| SECOND CIRCUIT | ||
| N.D.N.Y. | PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communs. RF, LLC, No. 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78408, at *30-31 (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Verint Systems Inc. et al v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 1-14-cv-05403 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim for failure to allege pre-suit knowledge is partially granted because the amended complaint adequately alleges prefiling knowledge of 5 of the patnets-in-suit but not 2 others. |
| N.D.N.Y. | PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communs. RF, LLC, No. 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152450, at *15-27 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2016) | Case is egregious and enhancement is warranted because the defendant copied, did not have a good faith basis for its noninfringement defense, and concealed its infringement. The jury award is doubled. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Verint Systems Inc. et al v. Red Box Recorders Ltd., 1-14-cv-05403 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment that it did not willfully infringe three of plaintiff’s patents is granted because defendant did not have pre-suit notice of those three patents. |
| S.D.N.Y. | ADREA, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al, 1-13-cv-04137 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2017) | Plaintiff not entitled to enhancement because there was no evidence of deliberate copying, of cover up or concealment, and plaintiff didn’t show that defendant lacked a reasonable basis for its position. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Bobcar Media, LLC v. Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc., No. 16-CV-885 (JPO), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1243, at *10-13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2017) | Plaintiff’s allegations plausibly suggest that defendant’s actions were subjectively willful |
| E.D.N.Y. | Crypto Research, LLC v. Assa Abloy, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-01718 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the complaint adequately alleges that defendant infringed with full knowledge of plaintiff’s rights in its patents. |
| E.D.N.Y. | American Technical Ceramics Corp. et al v. Presidio Components, Inc., 2-14-cv-06544 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no enhancement is denied because plaintiff asserts that undisputed evidence shows that defendant knew of the patent for many years. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Noble Security, Inc. et al v. ACCO Brands Corporation, 1-16-cv-09129 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff adequately alleged that defendant knew and monitored plaintiff’s pending applications and issued patents. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., et al, 1-15-cv-05024 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because plaintiff presented insufficient knowledge of the asserted patent and because defendant’s post-filing sales were made with a reasonable belief of noninfringement. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. et al v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, 1-18-cv-02434 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to plead either the necessary subjective intent of infringement or egregiousness. |
| S.D.N.Y. | Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Dell Inc., 1-18-cv-10454 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the complaint adequately alleges knowledge of the Accused Patents and intent with respect to the alleged inducement. |
| S.D.N.Y. | SIMO Holdings Inc. v. uCloudlink Network Technology Limited et al, 1-18-cv-05427 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is granted because the jury determined willfulness and because defendant does not appear to have taken remedial action. The jury award is enhanced by 1.3. |
| W.D.N.Y. | Izzo Golf Inc. v. King Par Golf Inc., 6-02-cv-06012 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is granted because of defendant’s copying, lack of good faith of no infringement, the size of defendant, defendant’s litigation behavior, the closeness of the case, the duration of misconduct, and the lack of remedial action. The jury award is trebled. |
| S.D.N.Y. | SIMO Holdings Inc. v. uCloudlink Network Technology Limited et al, 1-18-cv-05427 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2019) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury trial is denied because there was sufficient evidence of knowledge to support the jury’s findings. Sufficient evidence supports the jury finding that based on all of the circumstances, that defendant knew of the asserted patent at or before the time of its issuance. |
| THIRD CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Del. | Varian Med. Sys. v. Elekta AB, Civil Action No. 15-871-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91226, at *24-27 (D. Del. July 12, 2016) | The complaint doesn’t adequately plead willfulness |
| D. Del. | DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc., No. 15-654-SLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106484, at *14-17 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2016) | Plaintiff’s general willfulness allegations survive motion to dismiss |
| E.D. Pa. | Dorman Prods. v. PACCAR, Inc., No. 13-6383, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111985, at *21-27 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2016) | Summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because plaintiff has no evidence of pre-filing willful infringement |
| E.D. Pa. | Dominion Res. Inc. v. Alstom Grid, Inc., No. 15-224, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136728, at *52-70 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2016) | Enhanced damages are warranted because defendant willfully and egregiously induced infringement while aware of plaintiff’s patent. The jury award is doubled. |
| D. Del. | Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company, 1-13-cv-00843 (D. Del. Oct. 20, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is evidence that defendant set out to reverse engineer plaintiff’s product and perhaps infringe a patent it knew was pending. |
| D. Del. | Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., No. 09-80-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154520, at *48-51 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2016) | Motion for summary judgment of no willfulness granted with respect to one patent (because a reasonable fact finder couldn’t find that defendant subjectively intended to infringe the patent) and denied with respect to the other |
| D. Del. | Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Ubisoft Entm’t SA, Civil Action No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153207, at *35-41 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2016) | Pre-suit and post-suit willfulness claims are dismissed because the defendant had no notice of its alleged infringement |
| D. Del. | Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., No. 13-723-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171939, at *9 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) | Plaintiff’s motion to vacate earlier summary judgment of no willfulness (under Seagate) in light of Halo is denied because of defendant’s pre-litigation measures |
| E.D. Pa. | Dominion Resources, Inc. et al v. Alstom Grid, Inc., 2-15-cv-00224 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury finding. |
| D. Del. | Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et. al., 1-09-cv-01007 (D. Del. Jan. 5, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because pre-suit knowledge of a patent isn’t sufficient, and plaintiff doesn’t identify any evidence beyond pre-suit knowledge. |
| D. Del | Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Sci. Inc., Civil Action No. 16-358-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13548, at *3-4 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because it’s plausible that defendant intentionally or knowingly infringed the patent |
| D. Del. | Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Symantec Corporation, 1-13-cv-00440 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because pre-suit knowledge alone is not sufficient for willfulness. |
| D. Del. | Quest Integrity United States, LLC v. Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc., Civ. No. 14-1482-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because the “extremely convoluted chain of events” is best left to the jury. |
| D. Del. | Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., C. A. No. 16-679-RGA-MPT (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2017) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ willfulness claims because plaintiff presented evidence that defendants knew or should have known of the matter in the relevant patent. |
| D. Del | Sri Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 13-1534-SLR (D. Del. May. 25, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because Halo eliminated Seagate’s objective prong, and because substantial evidence supported the finding. Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is granted because of defendant’s litigation conduct, its apparent disdain for plaintiff, and the fact that it lost on all issues during summary judgment and at trial. The jury award is doubled. |
| D. Del. | Bayer HealthCare, LLC v. Baxalta Incorporated, et al, 1-16-cv-01122 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-filing claims for willfulness is granted because alleging knowledge of the parent application is insufficient, and the motion to dismiss for failing to allege egregious conduct is denied because there is no need to allege egregiousness at the pleadings. |
| D. Del. | Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 1-14-cv-00846 (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because defendant’s good faith defenses, litigation behavior, closeness of the case, duration of misconduct, lack of motivation for harm didn’t favor enhancement; and because plaintiff failed to show the need for a punitive sanction or deterrence. |
| E.D. Pa. | Progme Corporation v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al, 2-17-cv-01488 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff didn’t sufficiently plead pre-suit knowledge or reckless behavior; but the motion to dismiss is denied as to post-suit willfulness. |
| D. Del. | Rhodes Pharmaceuticals LP v. Indivior Inc., 1-16-cv-01308 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because defendant’s conduct after learning of the patent claims plausibly shows objective recklessness of the infringement risk. |
| D. Del. | Shire ViroPharma Incorporated v. CSL Behring LLC, 1-17-cv-00414 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because broader allegations of willfulness without a specific showing of egregiousness are sufficient at the pleadings stage. |
| D. Del. | Valmont Industries Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, 1-15-cv-00042 (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff did not show that defendant has known or should’ve known that its actions constituted infringement. |
| D.N.J. | The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corporation, 2-17-cv-06179 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the receipt of a detailed cease-and-desist letter, followed by continued infringement, makes plausible an inference of subjective willfulness. |
| D. Del. | Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 1-15-cv-00915 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because plaintiff failed to show egregious conduct pre- or post-suit; willful blindness at most shows knowledge rather than egregious conduct, and thus isn’t sufficient. |
| D. Del. | Kyowa Hakko Bio Co., Ltd. et al v. Ajinomoto Co., Ltd. et al, 1-17-cv-00313 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the complaint sufficiently pleads knowledge of the patent, and allows for an inference of egregious conduct. |
| D. Del. | Green Mountain Glass, LLC et al v. Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. d/b/a Verallia North America n/k/a Ardagh Glass Inc., 1-14-cv-00392 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2018) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness after a jury trial is denied because substantial evidence supports the jury finding; plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is denied because defendant’s litigation conduct, defendant’s size, closeness of the case, duration of misconduct, and lack of motivation for harm didn’t favor enhancement. |
| D. Del. | BlackBerry Limited v. Nokia Corporation et al, 1-17-cv-00155 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted because pleading pre-suit willfulness by two dismissed defendants doesn’t plausibly allege pre-suit willfulness by the surviving defendant. |
| D. Del. | Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation et al, 1-13-cv-00723 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2018) | Following two jury trials, plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is denied because six factors weighed against enhancement, and one factor (defendant’s attempts to conceal the misconduct) favored enhancement. |
| D. Del. | Johns Hopkins University v. Alcon Laboratories Inc. et al, 1-15-cv-00525 (D. Del. April. 5, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding pre- and post-suit willfulness. |
| D. Del. | Liqwd, Inc. et al v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al, 1-17-cv-00014 (D. Del. April 10, 2018) | Magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because the complaint plausibly shows that defendant knew of the patent, knew that the accused product would infringe, and continued to sell its product. |
| D. Del. | Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research v. Donghee America, Inc. et al, 1-16-cv-00187 (D. Del. May 22, 2018) | Defendant’s summary judgment motion of no pre-suit willfulness is granted because there is no evidence of egregiousness; and summary judgment of no post-suit willfulness is granted because plaintiff did not seek a preliminary injunction and defendant asserted reasonable defenses. |
| D. Del. | Valinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-01082 (D. Del. May 29, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because although plaintiff wasn’t required to plead egregiousness, plaintiff did not sufficiently plead knowledge of the patent. |
| D. Del. | Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 1-15-cv-01031 (D. Del. Jun. 28, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there are genuine issues of fact: there is evidence from which a jury could find that defendant acted despite a risk of infringement that was either actually known or so obvious it should have been known. |
| D. Del. | Genedics, LLC v. Meta Company, 1-17-cv-01062 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because a complaint need not plead facts showing egregiousness to survive a motion to dismiss. |
| D. Del. | Nox Medical ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc., 1-15-cv-00709 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willful infringement, Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because of Defendant’s good faith belief in invalidity and the closeness of the case. Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because a reasonable jury could’ve concluded the Defendant’s infringement was willful based on defendant’s post-issuance conduct. |
| D. Del. | Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S et al, 1-17-cv-01646 (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff has plausibly alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, and that defendant continued to sell products that infringed the patents. Egregiousness isn’t required at the pleadings. |
| D. Del. | bioMerieux, S.A. et al v. Hologic Inc., et al, 1-18-cv-00021 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff’s allegations are sufficiently plausible, and egregiousness isn’t required at the pleading stage. |
| D. Del. | Horatio Washington Depot Technologies LLC v. Tolmar, Inc. et al, 1-17-cv-01086 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff has sufficiently alleged knowledge of the asserted patents. |
| D. Del. | University of Massachusetts Medical School et al v. L’Oreal SA et al, 1-17-cv-00868 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff has sufficiently pled that defendant knew of the patents and knew that selling the accused products constituted infringement. |
| D. Del. | Groove Digital, Inc. v. King.com, Ltd. et al, 1-18-cv-00836 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because the complaint alleges only post-filing knowledge of the alleged infringement. |
| D. Del. | KOM Software Inc. v. NetApp, Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-00160 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant obtained knowledge of the patents and has continued infringement despite that knowledge. |
| D. Del. | Nox Medical ehf v. Natus Neurology Inc., 1-15-cv-00709 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because of defendant’s likely good faith belief of invalidity and the strength of defendant’s case. |
| D.N.J. | Nasdaq, Inc. et al v. IEX Group, Inc. et al, 3-18-cv-03014 (D.N.J. Jan. 4, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant knew of the patents years before the complaint was filed. |
| D. Del. | IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., 1-18-cv-00452 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff’s allegations do not support a finding that defendant knew its conduct was infringing. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-suit willfulness claim is denied because there is no requirement that plaintiff plead facts beyond knowledge of the patents to survive a motion to dismiss. |
| D. Del. | Groove Digital, Inc. v. Jam City, Inc., 1-18-cv-01331 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff plausibly alleges that defendant had knowledge of the asserted patent. |
| D. Del. | Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., 1-15-cv-00542 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because of insufficient evidence of egregious conduct. There is no evidence that shows the defendants subjectively believed they were infringing a valid patent. Defendants raised reasonable defenses to the plaintiff’s claims of infringement and their declining to adopt non-infringing alternatives is not unreasonable, much less egregious, in light of those asserted defenses. |
| D. Del. | Deere & Company v. AGCO Corporation, et al., 1-18-cv-00827 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s enhancement claim is partially granted as to some patents because a letter sent to one corporate defendant was not a sufficient basis to allege willful conduct. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-suit enhancement claim is partially denied as to other patents because the complaint sufficiently identified the patents and the accused infringing products. |
| D. Del. | Election Systems & Software, LLC v. Smartmatic USA Corporation, 1-18-cv-01259 (D. Del. Mar. 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that plaintiff gave defendant notice of its infringement, and that defendant offered to sell its accused product after this notice. |
| D. Del. | Zimmer Surgical, Inc. et al v. Stryker Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-00679 (D. Del. Mar. 7, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of genuine dispute of material pact as to post-filing conduct. A reasonable jury could find that defendant continued to sell the accused product without efforts to design around the patent, while asserting knowingly unreasonable defenses. |
| D. Del. | VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, 1-18-cv-00966 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s enhancement claim and strike its willfulness allegations is granted as to one patent because the complaint cannot serve as the basis for defendant’s actionable knowledge. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the enhancement claim is granted as to other patents because the complaint only alleges willful blindness to each patent’s existence not infringement. |
| D. Del. | 3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., 1-18-cv-00886 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff’s filing of an IPR shows defendant’s knowledge of the patent, and plaintiff alleges that defendant’s product functions similarly to plaintiff’s. |
| D. Del. | Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al, 1-15-cv-00634 (D. Del. Apr. 24, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for treble damages following a jury trial of no willfulness is denied because the jury found no willful infringement. |
| D. Del. | Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 1-15-cv-01031 (D. Del. May 2, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict is denied because one patent was invalidated by the PTAB, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and because damages are adequate to compensate plaintiff for the other patent. |
| D. Del. | TC Technology LLC v. Sprint Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-00153 (D. Del. May 31,, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because an email offering for sale patents, including the asserted patent, related to the technology does not sufficiently show actual knowledge of the infringement or willful blindness. |
| D. Del. | Express Mobile, Inc. v. DreamHost, LLC, 1-18-cv-01173 (D. Del. Jun. 18, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted. The complaint allege only post-filing knowledge of the alleged infringement. |
| D. Del. | RainDance Technologies, Inc. et al v. 10X Genomics, Inc., 1-15-cv-00152 (D. Del. July 3, 2019) | Defendant’s renewed JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. Based on testimony evidence, a reasonable juror could conclude that defendant knew its customers would use the accused products in a manner that infringed the asserted patents. |
| D. Del. | CFL Technologies LLC v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-01445 (D. Del. Jul. 8, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim for failing to allege knowledge is granted. Three of the patents in suit were held unenforceable pre-Therasense, and the facts that led to those judgments are largely identical to the facts underlying prosecution of the fourth patent in suit. |
| D. Del. | Siemens Industry, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation d/b/a Wabtec Corporation et al, 1-16-cv-00284 (D. Del. July 18, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because only 4 factors favor enhancement while defendant’s litigation conduct, closeness of the case, and lack of motivation for harm strongly disfavor enhancement. |
| D. Del. | Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc., et. al., 1-08-cv-00309 (D. Del. July 22, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the closeness of the case, lack of motivation to harm, and lack of concealment of misconduct favored against enhancement. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports that defendant intended for its products to enter the United States knowing that its products infringe. |
| D. Del. | RainDance Technologies, Inc. et al v. 10X Genomics, Inc., 1-15-cv-00152 (D. Del. July 24, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the lack of evidence of copying, litigation conduct, and strength of defendant’s claims favored against enhancement. |
| D. Del. | Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals LP v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC et al, 1-17-cv-01390 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims because plaintiff sufficiently alleged knowledge. Although plaintiff did not send defendant a letter, such explicit pre-suit allegation is not absolutely required. Based on what’s alleged, it’s plausible that defendant, sophisticated competitors of plaintiff with a longstanding significant insight into the patents and the technology, consciously and deliberately infringed those patents in the relevant time frame. Moreover, defendant did not stop engaging in the allegedly infringing conduct after receiving the complaint. |
| D. Del. | Bayer HealthCare, LLC v. Baxalta Incorporated, et al, 1-16-cv-01122 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on willfulness is denied because plaintiff did not show that defendant knew the accused product infringed. There was insufficient evidence to show that defendant knew the accused product met a specific claim limitation. |
| D. Del. | CG Technology Development, LLC v. William Hill US Holdco, Inc. et al, 1-18-cv-00533 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss pliantiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted. The only alleged basis for knowledge of infringement is defendant’ CEO’s involvement with plaintiff’s patent portfolio years ago. It is not plausible that, based on stale knowledge of unrelated patents, the CEO knew defendant’s accused products were infringing. |
| D. Del. | Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al, 1-16-cv-00638 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the willfulness instruction was not erroneous. Moreover substantial evidence supports the jury verdict, including knowledge of the infringement by defendant and knowledge of a non-infringing alternative. |
| D. Del. | Vectura Limited v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al, 1-16-cv-00638 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury trial of willfulness is denied because the lack of copying, defendants’ litigation behavior, lack of a close case, lack of a motivation for harm, and lack of concealment favored against enhancement. |
| D.N.J. | Mondis Technology Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc et al, 2-15-cv-04431 (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following jury verdict of willfulness is denied because substantial evidence supports the verdict. There is ample evidence supporting the conclusion that defendant’s infringement through the manufacture and sale of its product was, for at least some of the period of alleged infringement, done with knowledge that defendant was infringing the asserted claims. |
| D. Del. | 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc., 1-19-cv-00862 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommended denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims because plaintiff sufficiently alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges specific dates by which defendant knew or should have known of the infringement; and it further alleges that defendant monitors plaintiff’s patent filings. |
| D. Del. | NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 1-19-cv-01031 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommends partially granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff did not sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge. Although the complaint alleges negotiations between the defendant and the inventor, those negotiations pre-date the issuance the of the patents. The magistrate judge recommends partially denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because the complaint sufficiently alleges post-suit willfulness. |
| D. Del. | Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. et al v. SimpliSafe, Inc., 1-19-cv-00480 (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2019) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim. Defendant has provided no support for the contention that one cannot willfully infringe a patent as an indirect infringer. The amended complaint sufficiently alleges direct infringement by defendant’s customers and induced infringement by defendant. |
| FOURTH CIRCUIT | ||
| E.D. Va. | Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181710, at *51-54 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2016) | The complaint adequately alleges willfulness |
| W.D.N.C. | Sociedad Espanola de Electromedicina y Calidad, S.A. v. Blue Ridge X-Ray Co, No. 1:10-cv-00159-MR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179224, at *19-23 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2016) | No enhancement: although defendant’s infringement was willful, it made a reasonable investigation and had a good-faith belief of the patent’s invalidity |
| E.D. Va. | Jenkins v. LogicMark, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10975, at *13 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2017) | Plaintiff failed to state a claim for willfulness because a mere recitations of elements isn’t enough; the complaint doesn’t allege facts that support the inference that defendant had notice of the patent, or that defendant’s actions were sufficiently egregious |
| E.D. Va. | Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00021 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is granted because defendant’s copying, lack of a good faith belief in its defenses, litigation conduct, duration of misconduct, and motivation for harm weighed in favor of enhancement. The jury award is enhanced by 1.5. |
| E.D. Va. | Audio MPEG, Inc. et al v. Dell, Inc., et al, 2-15-cv-00073 (E.D. Va. Nov. 16, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there was an issue of material fact as to defendant’s good faith belief in its defenses; and defendant’s motion of no enhancement is denied because plaintiff’s arguments regarding defendant’s conduct could support a finding of egregiousness. |
| E.D. Va. | Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00021 (E.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2017) | Following a jury verdict, defendant’s motion of JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict of willfulness. |
| E.D. Va. | Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 1-18-cv-00760 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. |
| E.D.N.C. | Western Plastics, Inc. v. DuBose Strapping, Inc., 5-15-cv-00294 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether defendant willfully infringes the patent. |
| E.D. Va. | Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 1-18-cv-00760 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2019) | Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failing to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge or egregious conduct. Neither speculation that defendant became aware of its infringement by the time of the complaint, nor the examiner’s citing the asserted patent in defendant’s patent application is sufficient. |
| E.D. Va. | TecSec, Incorporated v. International Business Machines Corporation, et. al., 1-10-cv-00115 (E.D.V.A. Mar. 14, 2019) | Defendant’s JMOL during trial of no enhancement is granted because defendant’s conduct was not egregious. Defendant’s continued sale of the infringing product is typical behavior and not a proper basis for enhancement. Moreover defendant maintained nonfrivolous invalidity defenses throughout the case. |
| E.D. Va. | Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 1-18-cv-00760 (E.D. Va. April 30, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness claim is granted for failing to allege knowledge. Without more, alleged knowledge of the infringement by a company that defendant acquired cannot be imputed to defendant. |
| W.D.N.C. | RavenSafe, LLC f/k/a Backup Bridge LLC v. Nexus Technologies, Inc. et al, 1-19-cv-00105 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint alleges that defendant has known about the patents and their infringement of the patents since at least 9 months ago. And the complaint alleges that defendant has continued to infringe despite this knowledge. |
| FIFTH CIRCUIT | ||
| E.D. Tex. | Transdata, Inc. v. Denton Mun. Elec., Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-00557-RWS-JDL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110208, at *6-8 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2016) | Plaintiff’s motion to vacate earlier summary judgment of no willful infringement in light of Halo is granted because there are factual disputes related to subjective willfulness |
| E.D. Tex. | Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., 6-15-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2016) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because defendant may have been aware of plaintiff’s patents and of plaintiff’s infringement analysis of at least one patent. |
| E.D. Tex. | Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124144, at *22-27 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) | Magistrate Judge recommends that defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim be denied because the complaint plausibly alleges pre-suit and post-suit willfulness |
| E.D. Tex. | Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-CV-371, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113307, at *17-23 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016) | Enhancement is warranted because defendant copied and knew of the patents. The jury award is trebled. |
| E.D. Tex. | Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-911, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119470, at *11-14 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2016) | Defendant motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is a genuine issue of material fact |
| E.D. Tex. | Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00325 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff neither alleges pre-suit notice nor pre-suit egregious conduct; and because plaintiff had not sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendant’s alleged post-filing misconduct. |
| E.D. Tex. | NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, LLC, 6-12-cv-00244 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because the jury finding of willfulness was made under the higher clear and convincing standard; plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of defendant’s misconduct under the Read factors. The jury award is enhanced by 1.32. |
| E.D. Tex. | Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00912 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2016) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages is partially granted following jury trial because of defendant’s knowledge of the patent and license negotiation tactics. The jury award is enhanced by 1.2. |
| N.D. Tex. | Wright v. E-Sys., No. 3:12-CV-4715-K-BK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182155, at *10-15 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2016) | Defendant infringement was willful and enhancement is warranted because defendant failed to appear and to respond to the allegations |
| E.D. Tex. | Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., 1-14-cv-00104 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury trial is denied because no evidence showed that defendant had a belief the patents were invalid at the time it became aware of the patents. |
| N.D. Tex. | Richmond v. Sw Closeouts, No. 3:14-cv-4298-K, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26077, at *16-21 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages because plaintiff didn’t show that defendant willfully infringed the patent or that the case is otherwise uniquely egregious. |
| E.D. Tex. | Erfindergemeinschaft Uropep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30143, at *28-30 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) | Court declines defendant motion of summary judgment of no willfulness because a jury might find that defendant knew that the patent was both valid and infringed. |
| E.D. La. | Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., et. al., 2-07-cv-06510 (E.D. La. March 8, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted because all the Read factors except for concealment weigh in favor of enhancement. The jury award is trebled. |
| E.D. Tex. | Barry v. Medtronic, Inc. 1-14-cv-00104 (E.D. Tex. April 20, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted because defendant’s copying, its lack of investigation and formation of a good-faith defense, and its failure to take remedial action. The jury award is enhanced by 1.2. |
| E.D. Tex. | Imperium Ip Holdings (cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-00371 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to reconsider the enhanced damages award is denied because the PTAB’s invalidity decision wouldn’t have changed the court’s mind, and because the court considered all Read factors. Defendant’s motion for a new trial on willfulness is denied because a favorable jury finding under the subjective prong of Seagate is sufficient to show willfulness after Halo. |
| E.D. Tex. | Gbr v. Eli Lilly & Co., Case No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB (E.D. Tex. May. 18, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is granted because there was no copying, and defendant raised substantial arguments as to the validity of the patent. The court held so despite that defendant offered no evidence that it consulted counsel after receiving notice of the patent. |
| E.D. Tex. | Convolve, Inc. v. Dell Inc., Case No. 2:08-CV-244-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider enhanced damages is denied despite the jury finding of willfulness because there was no egregious misconduct. |
| E.D. Tex. | Elbit Sys. Land & C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, Case No. 2:15-CV-00037-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2017) | The magistrate judge recommends denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because defendant didn’t offer sufficient evidence of its executives’ subjective beliefs. |
| E.D. Tex. | Preferential Networks IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility et al. 2-16-cv-01374 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 15, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-filing willfulness claims, and recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-filing willfulness claims because service of a complaint is sufficient to withstand a pleadings willfulness challenge. |
| E.D. Tex. | T-Rex Property AB v. Regal Entertainment Group, 6-16-cv-00927 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s post-filing willfulness claim, and recommends granting one defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-filing willfulness claim because plaintiff doesn’t adequately plead pre-suit knowledge. |
| E.D. Tex. | Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 4-14-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for an ongoing royalty is granted, and the jury royalty rate is enhanced because defendant’s continued infringement is unreasonable, deliberate, and willful under the Read factors. The jury royalty rate is enhanced by 1.5. |
| E.D. Tex. | VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et. al., 6-10-cv-00417 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of willfulness following a jury trial, appeal, and retrial is granted; and plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors. The jury award is enhanced by 1.5. |
| E.D. Tex. | Ericsson Inc. et al v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al. 2-15-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because a reasonable jury could possibly conclude that defendant’s conduct has been egregious. |
| E.D. Tex. | Saint Lawrence Communications, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, LLC, 2-15-cv-00351 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement after a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because there was insufficient evidence of egregious misconduct: defendant did not deliberately copy plaintiff’s technology and defendant did not have an intent to harm the plaintiff. |
| E.D. Tex. | Soverain IP, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2-17-cv-00204 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2017) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims for failing to allege pre-suit knowledge; and recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim for failure to allege egregious misconduct. |
| E.D. Tex. | Eidos Display, LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, 6-11-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors, and the jury award is doubled. |
| E.D. Tex. | Whirlpool Corporation v. TST Water, LLC, 2-15-cv-01528 (E.D. Tex. March 29, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors after a jury verdict of willfulness, and the jury award is enhanced by 1.5. |
| N.D. Tex. | ZitoVault LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation et al, 3-16-cv-00962 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is partially granted because the knowledge of a parent defendant could not be imputed to the subsidiary defendant. |
| E.D. Tex. | Ericsson Inc. et al v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al, 2-15-cv-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2018) | After a jury finding of egregiousness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is partially granted under the Read factors; and plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of willfulness is granted. The jury award is enhanced by 1.33. |
| S.D. Tex. | M & C Innovations, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., 4-17-cv-02372 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2018) | Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff sufficiently alleges that defendant was aware of the patent prior to suit, that defendant is continuing to sell the infringing product even after the lawsuit, and that defendant copied plaintiff’s design. Moreover, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled willful and egregious conduct such that the claim for enhanced damages need not be dismissed. |
| S.D. Tex. | M & C Innovations, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., 4-17-cv-02372 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 31, 2018) | Defendant’s objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is sustained. Plaintiff has not alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. And alleging continued infringement after filing of the complaint is not sufficient to plead post-suit willfulness. |
| E.D. Tex. | VirnetX Inc. et al v. Apple Inc., 6-12-cv-00855 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willful infringement, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because the case was close, the misconduct was brief, and the remediation effort was significant. The court also considered the size of the jury verdict in refusing to enhance. |
| E.D. Tex. | Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 07, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willful infringement, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because egregious infringement behavior is present. Moreover defendant’s size and financial condition, the closeness of the case, the duration of the misconduct, and the lack of remedial action support enhancement. The jury award is enhanced by 1.49. |
| E.D. Tex. | GeoDynamics, Incorporated v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., 2-17-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because a reasonable jury could find that defendant willfully infringed by being aware of a risk of infringement, selling products, and failing to procure an opinion of counsel. |
| E.D. Tex. | Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2018) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because there was adequate evidence showing that defendant knew of the asserted patents. A good-faith belief in invalidity does not negate the scienter required for willful infringement. |
| N.D. Tex. | Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-03201 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because plaintiff raised factual issues regarding the culpability of defendant’s behavior. Plaintiff alleges efforts to conceal the infringement and knowledge of the patents. |
| W.D. Tex. | FHE USA LLC v. Lee Specialties Inc., 5-18-cv-00715 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that it sent defendant a letter alerting defendant to the potential infringement. |
| W.D. Tex. | Meetrix IP, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 1-18-cv-00309 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff’s recital of the elements for willfulness, supported by conclusory statements, does not suffice. |
| W.D. Tex. | Inhale, Inc. v. Gravitron, LLC, 1-18-cv-00762 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to allege facts raising a reasonable inference of pre-suit knowledge of the patent. |
| E.D. Tex. | Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted as to pre-suit willfulness because knowledge of the patent family is too attenuated to give reasonable notice of the asserted patents. The motion is denied as to post-suit willfulness. |
| E.D. Tex. | AMG Products, Inc. d/b/a AMG Development et al v. Dirt Cheap, LLC et al, 6-18-cv-00267 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2019) | The Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim because plaintiff allege that defendant learned of the patent and of plaintiff’s product before the complaint was filed, but continued to sell its allegedly infringing product. |
| E.D. Tex. | Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v. Telebrands Corporation, 6-16-cv-00033 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is granted because of defendant’s egregious behavior. After a previous defendant product was enjoined, the defendants only made a cosmetic change to it, and not a substantive one. Moreover, defendants’ litigation conduct was unreasonable. The jury award is enhanced by 2.0. One defendant’s JMOL motion for no willfulness is granted because the jury never heard any testimony from any witness from the defendant. The jury thus didn’t hear sufficient evidence to find willfulness. |
| E.D. Tex. | Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint PCS et al, 2-17-cv-00662 (E.D. Tex. April 12, 2019) | The Magistrate Judge recommends partially granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because knowledge of the parent of one of the asserted patents or knowledge of other patents with the same inventor as the asserted patents is insufficient. |
| E.D. Tex. | Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied. The jury was entitled to consider the testimony of defendant’s corporate representative and defendant’s decision to continue selling the accused products. |
| W.D. Tex. | Frac Shack Inc. v. Alaska Fuel Distributors Inc., 7-19-cv-00026 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleged pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff and at least one defendant have an extensive history of patent litigation concerning the same technology and allegedly infringing device. |
| W.D. Tex. | Parity Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 6-19-cv-00207 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleged knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that it sent notice letters to defendant and that defendant’s counsel responded to these letters. |
| E.D. Tex. | Fractus, SA v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2-18-cv-00135 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 16, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of a dispute of material fact as to intent. That the defendant knew about the lawsuit and continued to use the accused products is at least some circumstantial evidence that the jury could rely on to find willfulness. |
| E.D. Tex. | Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corporation et al, 9-18-cv-00180 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 27, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. A well-pled claim of willful blindness is sufficient to state a claim for willful infringement. |
| E.D. Tex. | Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc, 5-19-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pre-suit willfulness clam is granted as to one patent because plaintiff failed to sufficiently pledge knowledge. Plaintiff only pleaded that defendant had knowledge of the patent application and not the ultimately issued patent. The motion to dismiss is denied as to other patents. The complaint alleges that defendant and plaintiff met and communicated multiple times to discuss a potential business transaction relating to the asserted patents and defendant’s products. |
| E.D. Tex. | Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC et al, 2-18-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019) | The Magistrate Judge recommends denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims. The complaint sufficiently alleges direct infringement and that defendant had knowledge of the patent as of the date of filing. |
| SIXTH CIRCUIT | ||
| N.D. Ohio | John Keeler & Co. v. Heron Point Seafood, Inc., No. 1:14 CV 1652, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171696, at *9 (N.D. Ohio July 8, 2016) | Court dismisses allegations of willfulness because there is no showing that defendant had pre-filling knowledge of the patents |
| E.D. Tenn. | Malibu Boats, LLC v. MasterCraft Boat Company LLC (TV1), 3-16-cv-00082 (E.D. Tenn. Oct 28, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant had advance notice of the patent, and the parties are involved in another litigation involving related claims. |
| W.D. Mich. | Stryker Corporation, et. al. v. Zimmer Inc., et. al., 1-10-cv-01223 (W.D. Mich. July 12, 2017) | Following remand, plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted because defendant’s conduct was more egregious than most. The jury award is trebled. |
| W.D. Tenn. | Susan McKnight, Inc. v. United Industries Corporation, 2-16-cv-02534 (W.D. Tenn. July 26, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims is granted because conclusory allegations of knowledge and infringement are not sufficient. |
| E.D. Mich. | Michigan Motor Technologies LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al, 2-17-cv-12901 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because the claim is adequately alleged and can be resolved only on a fully developed record. |
| W.D. Tenn. | WCM Industries, Inc. v. IPS Corporation, et. al., 2-13-cv-02019 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2019) | Following a remand, the court modified its earlier award of enhanced damages, reducing the award from treble damages to a 2.5 multiplier. Defendant’s copying, lack of good faith defense, size and financial condition, and closeness of the case support enhancement. |
| SEVENTH CIRCUIT | ||
| N.D. Ill. | Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., No. 12-cv-9033, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127627, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) | Motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted because there is no evidence that defendant’s conduct was sufficiently egregious |
| N.D. Ill. | Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12-cv-9033, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158435, at *5-8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2016) | Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the court’s earlier summary judgment of no willfulness is denied: defendant’s conduct was not egregious or willful |
| N.D. Ill. | R-Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, No. 11 C 8433, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18968, at *99 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2017) | The court enhances damages because the likelihood of infringement was objectively high and was likely known to the defendant, and because the case is sufficiently egregious. The award is trebled. |
| W.D. Wis | Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc., 14-cv-062-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jun. 6, 2017) | Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s post-verdict infringement was willful because defendant reasonably believed that it would have to pay for its infringement through an ongoing royalty. Plaintiff’s motion to modify an earlier order granting JMOL of no willfulness is denied: there was no evidence of copying or other egregious misconduct. |
| E.D. Wis. | Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al v. Snap-On Incorporated, 2-14-cv-01296 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 29, 2017) | Following jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is denied because defendant did not act as a pirate; at worst, defendant did not sufficiently research at the outset whether it needed a license. Defendant’s motion for renewed JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict. |
| N.D. Ill. | The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. et al, 1-16-cv-06097 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2018) | Following a jury trial, defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict. Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted under the Read factors, and the damages award is trebled. |
| N.D. Ind. | Puget BioVentures, LLC v. Biomet Orthopaedics, LLC et al, 3-17-cv-00502 (N.D. Ind. June 11, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff pleaded defendant’s knowledge of the patent and defendant’s deliberate decision not to obtain a license. |
| N.D. Ind. | Puget Bio Ventures, LLC v Biomet Orthopedics LLC et al, 3-10-cv-00465 (N.D. Ind. Jul. 2, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant was repeatedly warned of infringement, yet it carried on with business as usual. |
| N.D. Ill. | Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. et al, 1-09-cv-03339 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 6, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is partially denied because there is testimony evidence that a few months before the lawsuit, defendant knew about the patent and the potentially infringement, and that it continued to sell the accused product anyways. |
| N.D. Ill. | Velocity Patent LLC v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 1-13-cv-08419 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is evidence that defendant continued to infringe after being sued and made no effort to ensure it was not infringing. |
| N.D. Ill. | Halo Creative & Design Limited et al v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc. et al, 1-14-cv-08196 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of the willfulness of defendant’s infringement, its continued infringement, and the multiple misrepresentations on the record. Defendant’s motion to modify the judgment to find no willfulness was denied because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s willfulness finding. The jury award is doubled. |
| N.D. Ill. | Dresser, LLC v. VRG Controls, LLC, 1-18-cv-01957 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant’s CEO is one of the named inventors of the patent, which is more than sufficient at the pleadings where it is not necessary to show egregiousness. |
| N.D. Ill. | Cascades AV LLC v. Evertz Microsystems, Ltd., 1-17-cv-07881 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges knowledge of the patents through a letter sent to defendant. Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s enhancement claim is also denied. |
| E.D. Wis. | Acantha LLC v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al, 1-15-cv-01257 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 5, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for double damages following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because defendants’ good faith, litigation conduct, closeness of the case, and lack of concealment weighed against enhancement. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied. Plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence of willfulness is sufficient to support the jury verdict. Defendant was aware of and had access to plaintiff’s patent and to the product of plaintiff’s licensee and shortly thereafter developed a very similar product. |
| N.D. Ill. | Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc. et al, 1-09-cv-03339 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is denied because the jury’s effective rate exceeded plaintiff’s damages request. The jury awarded almost a half-million more than plaintiff asked for. This premium outweighs the slight advantage that the Read factors give to plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. Evidence showed that defendant continued to sell the infringing product even after plaintiff notified defendant of the patent and after the lawsuit was filed. |
| EIGHTH CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Minn. | Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 0-11-cv-00820 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2016) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness because of noninfringement and invalidity defenses is denied. |
| D. Minn. | Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation et al, 0-16-cv-02891 (D. Minn. June 29, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant was aware of the patent and knew that its conduct was infringing |
| D. Minn. | Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 0-11-cv-00820 (D. Minn. Jul. 30, 2018) | Following a jury verdict, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because all factors except for the length of infringement and defendant’s failure to take remedial action weighed in against enhancement. |
| N.D. Iowa | Meridian Manufacturing Inc. v. C&B Manufacturing Inc., 5-15-cv-04238 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 5, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no enhancement is denied because there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding willfulness. Plaintiff argues that defendant cited the asserted patent in prosecuting its own patent. |
| D. Neb. | Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation, 8-10-cv-00187 (D. Neb. Nov. 26, 2018) | Following a remand from the Federal Circuit, plaintiff’s motion to reaffirm the jury finding of willfulness is granted because the jury was asked to, and did, resolve the question of defendant’s subjective intent. |
| D. Minn. | Solutran, Inc. v. US Bancorp et al, 0-13-cv-02637 (D. Minn. Dec. 11, 2018) | Following a jury verdict, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because defendant didn’t engage in egregious misconduct based on the totality of the circumstances. Litigation misconduct is more relevant to attorney fees than enhancement. |
| NINTH CIRCUIT | ||
| S.D. Cal. | Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., No. 14-cv-02061-H-BGS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82532, at *42-46 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) | The court denies defendant’s motion for a finding of no willfulness because subjective willfulness is for the jury |
| N.D. Cal. | Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 4-16-cv-01729 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because allegations about knowledge of another patent do not show pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit. |
| C.D. Cal. | Emazing Lights LLC v. Ramiro Montes De Oca et al, 8-15-cv-01561 (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because the complaint presents legal conclusions without factual basis, or otherwise lack factual basis for its allegations. |
| N.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93267, at *47-53 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) | Enhanced damages are not warranted because plaintiff hasn’t engaged in egregious misconduct as described by Halo |
| N.D. Cal. | Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., No. 13-cv-05038 NC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105762, at *25-26 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) | Although defendant willfully infringed, its conduct was not egregious, so enhancement isn’t warranted |
| S.D. Cal. | Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., No. 14-cv-02061-H-BGS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110212, at *69-73 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016) | Despite jury finding of willfulness, enhancement isn’t warranted because the case isn’t egregious |
| N.D. Cal. | Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112504, at *10-28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) | JMOL of nonwillfulness is granted because there isn’t sufficient evidence of subjective willfulness |
| D. Nev. | CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Big Fish Games, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00857-RCJ-VCF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115594, at *43-44 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2016) | Court dismisses plaintiff’s willfulness claim because it does not allege egregious misconduct |
| N.D. Cal. | Nanosys, Inc. et al v. QD Vision, Inc., 4-16-cv-01957 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege more than mere knowledge of the patents, but in amending the complaint, plaintiff need not allege specific names of individuals. |
| W.D. Wash. | Loops LLC v. Phx. Trading, Inc., No. C08-1064RSM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155694, at *14-15 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2016) | Enhancement not warranted because defendant stopped infringing after receiving notice |
| S.D. Cal. | Scripps Research Inst. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 16-cv-661 JLS (BGS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161279, at *21-23 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) | Plaintiff’s willfulness claim is dismissed because plaintiff doesn’t plausibly allege that defendant had knowledge of the relevant patent |
| C.D. Cal. | Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd., No. CV 07-cv-02185-GHK (AJWx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167930, at *54-55 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2016) | Summary judgment of nonwillfulness warranted because defendant didn’t engage in misconduct beyond typical infringement |
| D. Nev. | CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. FanDuel, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00801-RCJ-VCF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1511, at *16-17 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) | Court dismisses willfulness claim without leave to amend because no egregious misconduct |
| N.D. Cal. | Nanosys, Inc. v. QD Vision, Inc., No. 16-cv-01957-YGR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1085, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017) | Motion to dismiss willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges defendant used his specific knowledge of the patent to develop and market an infringing product |
| N.D. Cal. | Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-05235-MMC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5561, at *10-15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) | Though willfulness is established, no enhancement because no egregious misconduct |
| D. Nev. | CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00859-RCJ-VCF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23313, at *14 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2017) | Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss willfulness claim because plaintiffs failed to allege that defendant’s conduct is egregious beyond typical infringement; plaintiffs simply alleged the defendant was aware of the patent and continued infringing |
| D. Ariz. | Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., No. CV16-2026 PHX DGC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23842, at *28 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2017) | Court grants motion to dismiss willfulness claim: although plaintiff alleged facts to show knowledge, it did not allege facts to show the additional element of egregiousness |
| C.D. Cal. | Polara Eng’g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., No. SA CV 13-00007-DFM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27304, at *78-79 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) | After jury willfulness finding, court denies defendant’s JMOL of no willfulness and grants plaintiff’s motion to enhance damages because 5/9 Read factors favor enhancement. The jury award is enhanced by 2.5. |
| C.D. Cal. | Soteria Encryption, LLC v. Lenovo Global Technology (United States) Inc. et al, 2-16-cv-07958 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff doesn’t allege that defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent. |
| S.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al 3-17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pled knowledge: prior to filing the suit, plaintiff put defendant on notice of its contentions. |
| N.D. Cal. | Personalweb Techs. LLC v. Int’l Bus. MacHs. Corp., Case No. 16-cv-01266-EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant subjectively believed it was infringing a valid patent. |
| N.D. Cal. | Novitaz, Inc. v. Inmarket Media, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-06795-EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 26, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff didn’t sufficiently allege knowledge and intent. |
| N.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge or egregious behavior. |
| D. Ore. | adidas America, Inc. et al v. Skechers USA, Inc.3-16-cv-01400 (D. Ore. Jun. 12, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff didn’t sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents or willful blindness. |
| D. Ore. | Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Planar Sys., Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-1510-SI (D. Or. Jun. 19, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because there is a dispute of fact as to the defendant’s reliance on the indemnification agreement with the manufacturer. |
| D. Ariz. | Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., No. CV16-2026 PHX DGC (D. Ariz. Jun. 16, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss the willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff didn’t sufficiently allege egregiousness; knowledge alone is insufficient. |
| N.D. Cal. | Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al. 5-12-cv-00630 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2017) | The court finds substantial evidence supports to jury finding of willfulness, and enhances damages because of defendant’s copying, attempt to conceal the misconduct, and the availability of non-infringing alternatives. The jury award is enhanced by 1.3. |
| C.D. Cal. | PUMA SE et al v. Forever 21, Inc., 2-17-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff plausibly alleges that defendant had actual knowledge of the patent and knew its conduct constituted infringement. |
| C.D. Cal. | CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc., 2-13-cv-08418 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement after a jury trial is denied because there was insufficient evidence of egregious misconduct. |
| C.D. Cal. | Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. v. Ultraproof, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-01161 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff must specify the patents allegedly infringed and provide allegations that defendant sold its product in the face of an objectively high likelihood that it was infringing. |
| D. Nev. | Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et. al., 2-07-cv-00331 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2017) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because defendant was not a “pirate;” defendant pursued non-frivolous defenses at trial and had a basis to subjectively believe it was not infringing throughout this litigation and prior. |
| N.D. Cal. | Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3-16-cv-03582 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2017) | Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s enhancement claim is denied because plaintiff alleges defendant was aware of the patents and continued selling the accused products. |
| C.D. Cal. | Wongab Corporation v. Nordstrom, Inc. d/b/a Nordstrom Rack et al, 2-17-cv-02974 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff merely recites the elements of willfulness and doesn’t provide further factual support. |
| N.D. Cal. | XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 3-17-cv-03848 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff needs to do more than allege knowledge and continued infringement; it must allege egregious misconduct. |
| C.D. Cal. | Commercial Copy Innovations, Inc. v. Ricoh Electronics, Inc. et al, 8-17-cv-00437 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff adequately pleaded pre-suit knowledge. |
| C.D. Cal. | Genes Industry Inc v. Custom Blinds and Components Inc, 8-15-cv-00476 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) | Following a jury trial, plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted under the Read factors; defendant copied plaintiff’s patented product and continued to sell its infringing product after receiving notice. The jury award is trebled. |
| C.D. Cal. | Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al, 8-17-cv-00981 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because allegations of knowledge and continued infringement are insufficient without alleging egregious misconduct. |
| N.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5-17-cv-00072 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleges pre-suit knowledge and egregious behavior. |
| C.D. Cal. | Fulfillium, Inc. v. ReShape Medical, Inc., 2-17-cv-08419 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded knowledge and continued infringement. |
| N.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., 3-17-cv-05659 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff doesn’t sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge or that defendant ignored known infringement. |
| C.D. Cal. | Lawrence E Tannas v. Multichip Display Inc et al, 8-15-cv-00282 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because there was insufficient evidence of egregious infringement misconduct; the inquiry emphasizes infringement misconduct, not litigation misconduct. |
| C.D. Cal. | International Designs Corporation, LLC et al v. HairArt Int’l Inc., 2-17-cv-08411 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because the complaint provides allegations of knowledge of the patent and nothing more. |
| N.D. Cal. | Rearden LLC et al v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-04187 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges continued infringement in knowing or willfully blind violation of plaintiff’s IP rights. |
| N.D. Cal. | Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al, 3-17-cv-05806 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge and egregious misconduct. |
| N.D. Cal. | Avocent Huntsville, LLC v. ZPE Systems, Inc., 3-17-cv-04319 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pleads egregiousness, highlighting the alleged actions of individuals. |
| C.D. Cal. | International Designs Corporation, LLC et al v. HairArt Int’l Inc., 2-17-cv-08411 (C.D. Cal. April 19, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded egregiousness; the complaint pleads knowledge, continued infringement, and misconduct by defendant. |
| N.D. Cal. | Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Corporation et al, 5-15-cv-05836 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018) | Following jury finding of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of defendant’s efforts to copy plaintiff and defendant’s awareness that it could be infringing. The jury award is doubled. |
| N.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., 5-17-cv-04467 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims is denied because the complaint alleges that defendant knew in detail about how it infringed the patents and continued with disingenuous licensing discussions. |
| S.D. Cal. | Simpson Performance Products, Inc. v. NecksGen Inc., 3-17-cv-01704 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) | Defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim and strike its request of enhancement is granted because plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory, and plaintiff fails to plausibly allege egregious misconduct. |
| C.D. Cal. | EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 5-16-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted as to pre-suit willfulness because there is insufficient evidence of pre-suit knowledge, but the motion is denied as to post-suit willfulness. |
| C.D. Cal. | Sleep Number Corporation v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC, 5-18-cv-00356 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims is granted as to two patents because defendant did not have pre-suit notice of the potential infringement. The motion is denied as to one patent because there is evidence of prior written notice and a related ITC proceeding. |
| N.D. Cal. | Software Research, Inc. v. Dynatrace LLC et al, 3-18-cv-00232 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff fails to plausibly allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. |
| W.D. Wash. | Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-00522 (W.D. Wash. Jul. 13, 2018) | Following a jury verdict, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is denied because the jury found that the defendant’s infringement was not willful. The jury finding was supported by substantial evidence. |
| N.D. Cal. | Johnstech International Corp. v. JF Technology Berhad et al, 3-14-cv-02864 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because of the evidence of culpable conduct presented at trial and defendant’s deliberate and conscious decision to continue selling the product after the verdict. The jury award is enhanced by 1.25. |
| N.D. Cal. | Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al, 3-18-cv-01942 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s willfulness counterclaim is granted because the counterclaim is conclusory and lacks the egregiousness required. |
| C.D. Cal. | Automotive Data Solutions, Inc. v. Directed Electronics Canada Inc. et al, 2-18-cv-01560 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff sufficiently alleges that defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringed the patent in an egregious manner. |
| C.D. Cal. | BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al, 2-18-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim as to 9 patents is granted for failing to allege pre-suit knowledge. The motion to dismiss is granted as to two patents for failing to allege any type of egregious behavior that could support a willfulness claim. The motion is granted as to two other patents because plaintiff simply alleges that defendant should’ve been aware of the patents without alleging any egregious behavior. |
| N.D. Cal. | Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Bridgelux, Inc., 4-17-cv-03363 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge. |
| N.D. Cal. | NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5-18-cv-02352 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted because plaintiff failed to allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Knowledge of the patent application alone is not sufficient. |
| N.D. Cal. | Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5-17-cv-06457 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges more than simply that defendant knew about the patents and that defendant infringed them. It’s plausible to conclude that defendant continued to sell an infringing product despite being aware that it was infringing the patents. |
| C.D. Cal. | Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corporation, et. al., 2-07-cv-08108 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, which was supported by substantial evidence, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because every Read factor except for attempts to conceal the infringement weigh in favor of enhancement. The jury award is doubled. |
| N.D. Cal. | Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Woss Enterprises, LLC, 5-14-cv-01725 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for enhancement is granted because defendant’s copying, lack of a good faith defense, lack of closeness of the case, and duration of misconduct favored enhancement. The jury award is doubled. |
| C.D. Cal. | EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 5-16-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2019) | Following a jury verdict, plaintiff’s motion for an ongoing royalty is granted because plaintiff’s motion to enhance the jury’s rate due to defendant’s willfulness is denied. There is no evidence that Defendant’s conduct has been so egregious as to justify enhancement. |
| S.D. Cal. | Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom, Inc., 3-18-cv-00134 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to allege egregious misconduct. The complaint shows Defendant knew of the patent, but it lacks factual detail plausibly to infer Defendant knew it was infringing and yet still continued its activities. Defendant’s continuing post-suit manufacturing and sales can’t be the sole evidence to support a willfulness claim. |
| C.D. Cal. | Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc., 8-18-cv-01580 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint alleges that plaintiff provided defendant with technical access to the technology and that defendant copied the technology and included it in its own product without plaintiff’s consent. |
| N.D. Cal | Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 3-18-cv-02245 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff alleges that defendant knew about the patent when plaintiff proposed a purchase or licensing deal to defendant for it. Defendant proceeded with alleged infringing activity after that. |
| C.D. Cal. | Five Star Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Ready Pac Foods, Inc. et al, 5-18-cv-02436 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint alleges that Defendant has been on notice of plaintiff’s patent since at least a month before this suit was filed. So pre-filing knowledge is sufficiently pled. |
| S.D. Cal. | Spectrum Laboratories, LLC, v. Dr. Greens, Inc., 3-11-cv-00638 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion to enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is granted because defendant’s behaviour was egregious. Defendant were Plaintiff’s largest distributor. Defendant knew of the patent from the time it issued. Defendant developed its infringing product with this knowledge without obtaining advice of counsel. Defendant sold its products after receiving cease and desist warnings from Plaintiff. The jury award is trebled. |
| N.D. Cal | Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, 4-16-cv-07160 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) | Counterclaim defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no enhancement is denied because of a disputed material fact of willfulness. The reasonableness of counterclaim defendant’s non-infringement positions does not preclude a finding of willfulness. Counterclaim defendant knew of the patents and was aware of the initial patent applications, and evidence shows that it unsuccessfully tried to license the patents. |
| N.D. Cal | Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Google LLC, 4-18-cv-06137 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to allege egregious conduct. The complaint only shows that defendant failed to properly investigate whether it infringed. Plaintiff’s pre-suit letter asking for a business discussion is not sufficient. |
| C.D. Cal. | Preservation Technologies LLC v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-08906 (C.D. Cal. April 2, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. The complaint properly alleges knowledge, infringement, and specific intent to infringe. Defendant’s equitable estoppel argument is not persuasive. |
| C.D. Cal. | EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 5-16-cv-01824 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness following a jury verdict is denied. Substantial evidence supports the jury finding that defendant continued to willfully infringe upon notice of the patent. |
| C.D. Cal. | SpeakWare, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 8-18-cv-01293 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to allege egregious conduct. The Complaint merely alleges that defendant had knowledge or willful blindness of the infringement based on the allegations in the indirect infringement claims. |
| C.D. Cal. | VRtoysone, LLC v. Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., 2-19-cv-00742 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted. Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege defendant’s knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct by defendant. Moreover, plaintiff failed to make a direct connection between defendant and a related third party. |
| C.D. Cal. | Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 2-17-cv-04146 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of a genuine dispute of fact as to knowledge. Plaintiff contacted defendant regarding its patent portfolio, and specifically referred to one asserted patent in its notice of infringement letter. |
| C.D. Cal. | Kuen Hwa Traffic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. DNA Motor, Inc., 2-18-cv-05664 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2019) | The court determines following a bench trial that plaintiff failed to show willfulness by the defendant. Plaintiff’s claim is based solely on defendant’s knowledge of the design patent after the cease and desist letter. Moreover, defendant had a good faith belief of no infringement based on its own analysis and its reliance on outside counsel. |
| N.D. Cal | Power Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corporation et al, 5-16-cv-06371 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019) | Counterclaim defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted for lack of pre-suit notice. Counterclaim plaintiff fails to submit any admissible evidence showing pre-suit notice of the alleged infringement. |
| C.D. Cal. | Top Lighting Corporation v. Linco Inc., 5-15-cv-01589 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) | Counterclaim plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted because of counterclaim defendant’s copying, lack of good faith defense, litigation misconduct, closeness of the case, duration of misconduct, and concealment favor enhancement. The jury award is trebled. |
| C.D. Cal. | Rehrig Pacific Company v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd. et al, 2-19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness and enhancement claims is granted for failing to sufficiently allege pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff’s allegations that it marked its product and that defendant copied plaintiff’s product does not show knowledge. |
| S.D. Cal. | Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 3-18-cv-01518 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is granted for failure to allege egregious conduct. Enhanced damages are not appropriate simply because the evidence shows that the infringer knew about the patent and nothing more. Defendant’s continuing post-suit manufacturing and sales cannot be the sole evidence to support a willfulness claim. |
| N.D. Cal | UPF Innovations, LLC v. Intrinsic ID, Inc., 3-19-cv-02711 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff alleges that it sent defendant a letter informing it of the infringement and that defendant continued to infringe after receiving that letter. |
| S.D. Cal. | Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al, 3-17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is denied because of a genuine dispute of fact as to pre-suit knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that defendant knew throughout the pendency of the parties’ standstill agreement that it was infringing, and alleges that defendant was negotiating in bad faith. |
| D. Or. | InVue Security Products Inc. v. Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. d/b/a MTI f/k/a Merchandising Technologies Inc., 3-19-cv-00407 (D. Or. Oct. 18, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s direct and indirect infringement is willful because it continues despite an objectively high likelihood that it infringes, and that this likelihood is known to defendant. Although the complaint recites the requirements of the defunct Seagate standard, the defendant has not pointed to any case in which a court dismissed an enhanced damages claim at this early stage of litigation. |
| S.D. Cal. | WI-LAN Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 3-18-cv-01577 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019) | Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness is granted. Although a claim for willfulness can be based on post-filing conduct alone, plaintiff failed to allege post-filing egregious conduct. Defendant has a meritorious patent defense based on a prior agreement as to one asserted patent. And the defendant has produced expert reports containing detailed noninfringement and invalidity opinions. |
| S.D. Cal. | Spectrum Laboratories, LLC, v. Dr. Greens, Inc., 3-11-cv-00638 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiff’s motion for enhancement following a jury verdict of willfulness is granted because defendant’s behavior was egregious. Defendant were Plaintiff’s largest distributor. Defendant developed its infringing product without investigating the asserted patent to obtain a good faith belief of noninfringement. Defendant sold its products after receiving cease and desist warnings from Plaintiff. The jury award is doubled. |
| TENTH CIRCUIT | ||
| D. Colo. | XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, Civil Action No. 13-cv-0876-WJM-NYW, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156230, at *9 (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2016) | Despite reinstating the jury finding of willfulness, the court does not reconsider its earlier denial to enhance damages |
| D. Kan. | Sprint Communs. Co. L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 11-2686-JWL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37191, at *37-46 (D. Kan. Mar. 14, 2017) | Court denies plaintiff’s claim for enhancement, concluding enhancement isn’t warranted despite that the jury found willfulness because the case is not egregious. |
| D. Kan. | Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 11-2686-JWL (D. Kan. May. 30, 2017) | Following a jury finding of willfulness, defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness was denied because there was evidence that the parties discussed the patents, that defendant monitored plaintiff’s suit against a third party, and that defendant subsequently investigated plaintiff’s patents. |
| ELEVENTH CIRCUIT | ||
| S.D. Fla. | Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., No. 14-cv-62369-BLOOM/Valle, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107724, at *29-31 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2016) | Defendant willfully infringed the patent without approaching plaintiff for a license; enhancement is warranted |
| S.D. Fla. | Global Tech LED, LLC v. Everey Watt Matter, LLC et al, 0-15-cv-61933 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2018) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied because plaintiff alleges that defendant was aware of plaintiff’s parent patent application and continued to infringe. |
| M.D. Fla. | Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp. 6-13-cv-01950 (M.D. Fla. April 5, 2017) | The court granted defendant’s motion for enhanced damages because of defendant’s lack of a good faith defense, size, duration of misconduct, and concealment. The jury award is trebled. |
| S.D. Fla. | Atmos Nation, LLC et al v. BnB Enterprise, LLC, 0-16-cv-62083 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2017) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claims is granted because plaintiff does not allege that defendant had knowledge of the patents or that it engaged in egregious misconduct. |
| M.D. Fla. | Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp., 6-13-cv-01950 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2017) | Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no willfulness is denied because there is sufficient evidence to support the jury finding of willfulness. |
| N.D. Ga. | Canon, Inc. v. Color Imaging, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-03855 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 2018) | Following a jury verdict of willfulness, plaintiff’s motion for treble damages is granted under the Read factors, and the jury award is increased by 1.2. |
| M.D. Fla. | Somero Enterprises, Inc. v. Line Dragon, LLC et al, 2-18-cv-00161 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2018) | Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s willfulness counterclaim is granted because no description of the infringing product or how it infringes is provided. |
| S.D. Fla. | Edge Systems LLC v. Venus Concept USA Inc., 0-18-cv-62588 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. Although the allegations in the complaint only raise inferences of knowledge, all reasonable inferences are drawn in Plaintiff’s favor at this stage. Moreover the inference that defendant knew about plaintiff’s patents because it hired a manager from plaintiff and investigated plaintiff’s portfolio is reasonable. |
| N.D. Ala. | Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Integrated Medical Systems International, Inc., 2-12-cv-02716 (N.D. Ala. July 11, 2019) | Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s willfulness claim is denied. While the USPTO reexamined and reissued plaintiff’s patents after suit was filed, the complaint alleges that defendant infringed the patent at least two more times since. Such repeated infringements in the midst of ongoing litigation and patent reexamination proceedings would evidence deliberateness, duration, and a total lack of remedial behavior. |
Firstly it is Experimental Psychology, which is a methodological approach rather cialis 5mg price than a subject and the research is conducted on using the experimental methods. For women with bleeding in menstrual which is heavy, shock is caused, when there is a metrorrhagia of in the past few decades, there has been tremendous infrastructure development. levitra online viagra samples cheap In cases of ED it’s not men are affected in their ability to attain erections. PDE5 purchase of viagra issue can be temporarily removed to open a way for making blood reach to penile region and make ED patient permissible to commence depth lovemaking session procurable after being offered rigid private part.