Wbip v. Kohler was decided on July 19, 2016 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that defendant Kohler infringed all the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not invalid, and that Kohler’s infringement was willful (under Seagate’s clear and convincing standard). After the verdict, the district …
Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics was decided by the Supreme Court on June 13, 2016 on appeal from the District of Nevada. There, a jury found that defendant Pulse had infringed plaintiff Halo’s patent, and that the infringement was probably willful. Applying the then-standard Seagate, the district court declined to enhance …
Convolve v. Compaq was decided on February 10, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court granted summary judgment of no infringement, and that liability was precluded by intervening rights arising from a December 2, 2008 substantive amendment to the asserted claims. Plaintiff Convolve appealed. The Federal Circuit …
Lumen View Tech. v. Findthebest.com was decided on January 22, 2016 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. There, the district court held that plaintiff-Lumen View’s patent was directed to an abstract idea, and therefore was invalid under § 101. Defendant Findthebest then moved for an award of attorney fees under § …
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 …
Integrated v. Rudolph is a nonprecedential case decided on October 21, 2015, up on appeal for the second time from the District of Arizona. There, the jury returned a verdict of infringement and willfulness. At trial, it was discovered that defendant Rudolph continued to contest infringement even though its CEO personally thought that …
Nordock v. Systems was decided on September 29, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and that the patent was not invalid. Nordock’s damages expert testified that System’s net profit for the sale of the infringing items was …
M-I v. FPUSA is a nonprecedential case decided on September 24, 2015 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court preliminarily enjoined defendant FPUSA from promoting, selling, or renting a system that infringed one or more claims of plaintiff M-I’s patent. FPUSA appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …
Apple Inc. v. Samsung was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, the jury awarded Plaintiff-Apple $119,625,000 for Defendant-Samsung’s infringement of three of five asserted patents. Following the verdict, the district court denied Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, finding that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. Apple …
Adjustacam v. Newegg is a nonprecedential case decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after dismissing the case, the district court denied defendant Newegg’s motion for attorney fees under the then-prevailing Brooks Furniture standard. Newegg appealed the denial of fees. Plaintiff AdjustaCam appealed claim construction. …