Patent Lawyer Blog
Having obtained a $1.5 billion judgment and an ongoing royalty against Marvell, Carnegie Mello University (“CMU”) sought to liquidated the ongoing royalty amount in the Final Judgment. In response, Marvell argued that the district court made clear in its decision that such ongoing royalties are to be dealt with as a separate matter. The parties are battling over these amounts as they will impact the amount of the supersedas bond, which will be a very significant amount given the damage award.
The district court agreed with Marvell, finding that the ongoing royalties should be addressed as a separate matter and not be liquidated in the Final Judgment. “To this end, as the Court recounted in its decision of March 31, 2014, through its various post-trial motions, CMU sought supplemental damages for damages which accrued from July 2012 until the date of the initial Judgment in this case, i.e., January 14, 2013, and the Court awarded supplemental damages of $79,550,288.00, a figure which represented the supplemental damages for the infringement until that date. (Docket No. 933]).”
The district court then concluded that CMU did not properly seek reconsideration of the district court’s prior ruling. ” CMU did not timely seek reconsideration of this Court’s Order awarding supplemental damages of this amount or its decision to not include the ongoing royalties in the final damages calculations within seven days, as is required by this Court’s Practices and Procedures. See CMU v. Marvell, Civ. A. No. 09-290, 2012 WL 6562413, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2012) (noting that this Court’s Practices and Procedures state that “[a]ny Motions for reconsideration shall be filed within seven (7) days”).
The district court also found that CMU did not formerly move to include the additional damages into the Final Judgment. In addition, prior to the Court’s resolution of the final post-trial motions, CMU never formerly moved the Court for inclusion of the additional damages from the continuing infringement which accrued after January 14, 2013 into the Final Judgment’s calculations of supplemental damages. Further, the parties’ status report on the ongoing royalties is not due until May 1, 2014 and the precise figures for damages from the ongoing royalties until the present cannot be fully calculated at this time. (Docket No. [934]). Accordingly, CMU’s untimely request for inclusion of such ongoing royalties in the Final Judgment, submitted to the Court through the Special Master rather than via a timely filed motion for reconsideration, which CMU is well aware is required by this Court, is DENIED.”
The district court finally ordered the parties to finalize their negotiations over the Final Judgment and to conclude their negotiations with respect to the supersedas bond.
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. et al., Case No. 09-290 (W.D. Penn.)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.