Omega Patents v. CalAmp was decided on April 8, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of Florida. After the jury awarded plaintiff Omega approximately $2.98 million in compensatory damages, the district court trebled damages for willful infringement, awarded attorney’s fees to Omega, awarded damages for sales made subsequent to the jury verdict, and added pre-judgment interest. The award totaled approximately $15 million. The district court awarded an ongoing royalty instead of a permanent injunction. Defendant CalAmp appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of no invalidity; affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated-in-part the judgement as to direct infringement; and vacated and remanded for a new trial on indirect infringement, compensatory damages, willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney fees.
The Federal Circuit vacated the damages award and remanded for a new trial. The judgment of infringement was affirmed as to one claim, and a new trial was ordered as to the remaining claims. Generally, Federal Circuit law “would require a new trial as to damages when the jury renders a single verdict on damages and liability as to a subset of asserted claims has been set aside on appeal.” Here there was “was insufficient evidence to support the damages award of approximately $2.98 million based on the evidence presented based on infringement of” the sole claim as to which the Federal Circuit affirmed infringement.
The Federal Circuit vacated the willfulness finding, and the resulting enhanced damages and attorney fees, both of which were “explicitly based on the willful infringement finding.” For willful infringement, the jury was asked whether it had found CalAmp willfully “infringed a valid patent,” without specifying which patent or patents or which claim or claims were willfully infringed.
The Federal Circuit then addressed evidentiary issues relating to willfulness and intent, as these issues “will likely arise again on remand.”
Many reliable stores in the UK prices cialis have a peek at these guys are offering this branded medication without prescription at cheap prices. Once the student enters industry, the only way to relieve buy cheap levitra icks.org your body of stress is by meditating regularly. This will make sure icks.org tadalafil canada that the pill is dissolved well in the blood stream and is completely ready for use. There are several physical and psychological causes contributing to the development of erectile dysfunction in men. http://www.icks.org/data/ijks/1482457047_add_file_6.pdf order levitra
The district court excluded the testimony as to CalAmp’s state of mind regarding infringement and validity of the asserted patents by CalAmp’s senior director of business development. This was an abuse of discretion because the senior director’s “testimony on this issue was clearly relevant, as the evidence shows he was the main person tasked with investigating the patent landscape before CalAmp decided to release the accused products and he was central to CalAmp’s decision to launch the accused products.”
The district court prevented CalAmp’s outside counsel from “testifying as to the analysis he allegedly provided to CalAmp … prior to the launch of the products at issue in the litigation.” This was error. The Federal Circuit “ha[s] repeatedly recognized that advice of counsel is relevant to induced infringement and willfulness.” An accused infringer’s “reliance on an opinion of counsel regarding noninfringement or invalidity of the asserted patent remains relevant to the infringer’s state of mind post-Halo.”
Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 920 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019)