This opinion was superseded. Sprint v. Time Warner is a nonprecedential case decided on November 30, 2018 on appeal from the District of Kansas. At trial the district court permitted Sprint to introduce evidence of a jury verdict in a related case by Sprint against another defendant. The jury found that …
Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas.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 …
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 …
Arctic Cat v. Bombadier was decided on December 7, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Before trial, defendant Bombadier unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on several issues, including that plaintiff Artic Cat’s licensee failed to mark its products. The jury found the asserted patents not invalid, found willful infringement by …
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 …
Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on April 3, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In an earlier December 6, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit maintained the permanent injunction during the remand, and Chief Judge Prost dissented because she would have vacated the injunction. In the April 3, 2017 decision, the …
Prism v. Sprint Spectrum was decided on March 6, 2017 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Plaintiff Prism had sued defendant Sprint and AT&T separately. The AT&T suit settled, and the district court here admitted the AT&T settlement agreement into evidence over Sprint’s objections. A jury then found Sprint liable …
This opinion was superseded. Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Asetek prevailed at trial, receiving a judgment of infringement and of no invalidity, plus a damages award against defendant CMI of $404,941 on a 14.5% royalty rate. The district …
Scientific v. Cisco was decided on December 3, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the patent-in-suit concerned wireless local area network technology, and was included in the 802.11a “Wi-Fi” standard (first published in 1999). Around 2003, plaintiff Scientific developed a form license offer (“the Rate Card”), which it …
Summit 6 v. Samsung was decided on September 21, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The patent relates to the processing and uploading of digital photos. The jury found plaintiff Summit’s patent not invalid and infringed, and awarded Summit $15 million in damages. Summit settled with another defendant, RIM, before trial. …