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Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.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 …

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 …

Jury royalty awarding plaintiff 71% of infringer’s per-unit profit is supported by the evidence

Exergen v. Kaz is a nonprecedential case decided on March 8, 2018 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. Pre-trial, the district court granted defendant Kaz summary judgment of no willful infringement because its invalidity contentions were objectively reasonable. At trial, the jury found all asserted claims infringed and not invalid, …

If the smallest salable unit has non-infringing features, the patentee must further apportion the royalty

Finjan v. Blue Coat was decided on January 10, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. A jury found defendant Blue Coat liable for infringement of four patents (the ‘633, ‘731, ‘844, and ‘968) owned by plaintiff Finjan, and awarded approximately $39.5 million in reasonable royalty damages. The patents related to internet …

Fees awarded because plaintiff continued with meritless eligibility arguments after Alice

Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath & Beyond was decided on December 8, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After the Supreme Court decided Alice, defendant BBB won judgment on the pleadings that plaintiff Inventor Holdings’ patent was invalid under Alice. BBB then moved for attorney fees. The district court granted …

Attorney fee award affirmed in longstanding Octane Fitness saga

ICON v. Octane Fitness is a nonprecedential case decided on August 25, 2017 on appeal from the District of Minnesota. There, the district court awarded $1.6 million in attorney fees to defendant Octane Fitness, finding the case exceptional on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiff ICON appealed the exceptionality finding, and Octane …

Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial for attorney-fees factual inquiries

AIA America v. Avid was decided on August 10, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There, after the jury found against plaintiff AIA on patent ownership and co-inventorship, the district court found AIA lacked standing to assert the patents. After allowing “the parties to submit extensive briefing, evidence, …

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

Georgetown Rail v. Holland was decided on August 1, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. A jury found that defendant Holland willfully infringed plaintiff Georgetown Rail’s patent and award lost profits. The district court then denied Holland’s motion for JMOL, and enhanced damages based on the finding of willfulness. …

Equity action to set aside judgment is exceptional because of meritless allegations

Nova Chemicals v. Dow was decided on May 11, 2017 on appeal from the District of Delaware. In 2010, after a jury trial, the court entered judgment against defendant NOVA for over $61 million in damages. During the supplemental-damages phase, NOVA became aware of evidence allegedly showing that plaintiff Dow and its …

Patentee cannot bypass marking statute by disclaiming the unmarked feature

Rembrandt v. Samsung was decided on April 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The patents related to Bluetooth technology. There, the jury found that defendant Samsung infringed plaintiff Rembrandt’s patents, and awarded $15.7 million in damages. After trial, the district court denied Samsung’s motion for JMOL on obviousness …