Summary judgement of equitable estoppel inappropriate where there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the evidence

Ferring B.V. v. Allergan was decided on November 10, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. In September 2002, Ferring filed a PCT Application for its drug formulation, naming 6 inventors, including Fein, a consultant for Ferring. Fein “conceived the sublingual route of administration.” Two months later, …

Invalidity opinion of counsel is relevant but not dispositive in willfulness inquiry

C. R. Bard v. AngioDynamics was decided on November 10, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. Partway through the jury trial, the district court granted Defendant AngioDynamics JMOL that Plaintiff Bard’s asserted claims were not infringed, were not willfully infringed, and were invalid as directed to ineligible subject …

Supplemental damages and ongoing royalty vacated for relying almost exclusively on expired patent

EcoServices v. Certified Aviation is a nonprecedential case decided on October 8, 2020, on appeal from the Central District of California. Plaintiff EcoServices sued Defendant Aviation for infringement of two patents. One patent expired before trial. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict that Aviation infringed both patents, that the …

Availability of infringing generic alternatives is not a proper consideration for pharmaceutical lost profits

GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva was decided on October 2, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Defendant Teva induced infringement of Plaintiff GSK’s patent, awarded GSK “$234,110,000 based on lost profits, plus royalty payments of $1,400,000,” and found that the infringement was willful. The district court …

Jury royalty affirmed but injunction partially vacated because Defendant depends entirely on sales of enjoined products

Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics was decided on August 3, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Plaintiff Bio-Rad’s three asserted patents were valid and willfully infringed, and “awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716.” Post-trial, the district court denied Defendant 10X’s motion for  JMOL, …

Plaintiff cannot recover pre-suit damages because of unmarked licensee products

Packet Intelligence v. NetScout was decided on July 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Packet Intelligence sued Defendant NetScout on two method-claims patents and one apparatus-claims patent. The jury found all claims willfully infringed, rejected NetScout’s invalidity defenses under § 102, awarded $3.5 million in …

Denial of fees vacated where plaintiff filed multiple suits to obtain low-value settlements

Electronic Communication Technologies v. ShoppersChoice.com was decided on July 1, 2020, on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. The district court granted Defendant ShoppersChoice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings invalidating independent claim 11 of Plaintiff ECT’s asserted patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Subsequently, the district court denied ShopperChoice’s …

Assignor estoppel bars assignor from challenging patent validity at the district court but not the PTAB

Hologic v. Minerva Surgical was decided on April 22, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. A named inventor of the eventual asserted patents (the ‘183 and the ‘348) assigned his rights to the relevant patent applications to a company that would later be acquired by plaintiff Hologic. Years …

Defendant was prevailing party for fees after invalidating asserted claims at the PTAB

Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network was decided on April 21, 2020 on appeal from the District of Delaware. After plaintiff Dragon sued defendant DISH for patent infringement, Dish filed a petition seeking inter partes review of the asserted patent. Following a claim construction hearing at the district court, the …

Denial of summary judgment on patent eligibility reversed and jury award vacated

Ericsson v TCL Communication Technology was decided on April 14, 2020, on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The district court denied defendant TCL’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff Ericsson’s patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, the jury found the …