Pro se plaintiff held liable for attorney fees and expert costs

Huang v. Huawei Technologies is a nonprecedential case decided on June 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. After serving invalidity contentions, defendant Huawei served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter on pro se plaintiff Huang, asserting that Huang’s “claims were baseless and that a pre-suit investigation would have revealed …

Lower court erred in considering pre-suit licensing rate in determining the ongoing royalty

XY v. Trans Ova Genetics was decided on May 23, 2018 on appeal from the District of Colorado. Plaintiff XY sued defendant Trans Ova for patent infringement and breach of contract. The jury found that Trans Ova breached the contract and willfully infringed XY’s patent, and awarded XY $4,585,000 for the …

Party waived right to challenge finding of no willfulness despite change in law

Ultratec v. Sorenson is a nonprecedential case decided on May 18, 2018 on appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. The jury awarded plaintiff Ultratec a “total royalty payment of approximately $5,443,485.” The district court concluded on JMOL that there was no willfulness because plaintiff could not meet the objective prong of Seagate, …

Infringement, direct competition, and past harms support permanent injunction against generics company

Endo v. Teva is a nonprecedential case decided on May 16, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court found all asserted claims by plaintiff Endo against defendant Teva not invalid, and found all but two asserted claims infringed. The district court then issued a permanent injunction against …

Consumer’s interest in purchasing hypothetical infringing products does not create declaratory jurisdiction

AIDS Healthcare v. Gilead was decided on May 11, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Declaratory defendant Gilead has patents or is a licensee of patents on a particular antiviral agent used to treat AIDS. Declaratory plaintiff Healthcare provides medical care to persons afflicted with AIDS. Healthcare filed a declaratory judgment …

Expert’s royalty methodology properly apportioned the value of nonpatented features and of standardization

Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. All four asserted patents were standard essential. Before trial the district court denied ALE’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chrimar’s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty. A jury found …

Courts may deny fees after finding inequitable conduct but must explain

Energy Heating v. Heat On-The-Fly was decided on May 4, 2018 on appeal from the District of North Dakota. Before trial, the district court granted summary judgment in declaratory plaintiff Energy’s favor, dismissing some of declaratory defendant Heat’s infringement claims, and finding Heat’s asserted patent obvious. The jury found liability under …

Denial of permanent injunction vacated because willingness to license does not necessarily mean no irreparable harm

This opinion was superseded.   Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on May 1, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Texas Advanced sued defendant Renesas for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Before trial, the district court granted Renesas’s summary judgment motion …

Misconduct during prosecution and litigation supports finding of unclean hands for asserted patents

Gilead v. Merck was decided on April 25, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After the jury ruled for Merck and awarded $200 million in damages, the district court held a bench trial on Gilead’s unclean hands defense. The district court ruled for Gilead, “finding both pre-litigation business misconduct and litigation …

Dismissal with prejudice for lack of standing makes defendant a prevailing party for attorney fees

Raniere v. Microsoft was decided on April 18, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed plaintiff Raniere’s action with prejudice for lack of standing for Raniere’s failure to show ownership interest. Defendants, including Microsoft, moved for attorney fees under §285. The district court award fees and costs …