Articles Posted in Damages

I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) filed a complaint against AOL, Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc. and Target Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) in which I/P Engine alleged that the Defendants infringed several of its patents. After a jury trial, the jury reached a verdict finding that Google had infringed the asserted claims of two of I/P Engine’s patents and the jury awarded I/P Engine damages in the amount of $30,496,155, which did not include interest. The jury also awarded I/P Engine a running royalty rate of 3.5%. After the trial, I/P Engine moved for an ongoing royalty and Google opposed.

The district court began its analysis by noting that “[i]n light of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v, MercExchange, LW, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), it is no longer appropriate for a district court to enter an automatic permanent injunction to prevent future patent infringement.” Based on this directive, the district court also discussed that many other courts have found that an ongoing royalty is appropriate if the plaintiff cannot meet the requirements of a permanent injunction. The district court also concluded that “there is adequate support for the Court’s authority to impose an ongoing royalty when necessary to effectuate the jury’s finding of patent infringement. Further, there is no support in eBay or the subsequent case law that suggests a prevailing party in a patent infringement suit must be able to show that the requirements for a permanent injunction have been met before an ongoing royalty can be awarded to said party.”
Continue reading

Tomita Technologies USA, LLC (“Tomita”) won a jury verdict of $30M against Nintendo in patent infringement action. The jury found that Nintendo’s 3DS infringed the patent-in-suit (the ‘664 patent) and that the ‘664 patent was not invalid. Nintendo filed several post-trial motions, including a motion for a remittitur of the damages or a new trial.

The district court explained the background of the case as follows: “The ‘664 patent is a patent relating to stereoscopic (or 3D) imaging technology and includes four major elements: (1) ‘a stereoscopic video image pick-up device’ (i.e., two cameras), (2) a ‘stereoscopic video image display,’ (3) a ‘cross-point measuring means for measuring [cross-point] information on the cross-point (CP) of optical axes,’ and (4) an ‘offset presetting means for offsetting and displaying said different video images.’ U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 col. 2, 1.44-65. Tomita claims that Nintendo uses the `664 patent’s technology in the 3DS’s two outer cameras. Thus, only the 3DS’s camera application (which allows the user to take and view 3D photos and videos) and the augmented reality (“AR”) game card application (which allows some games to be superimposed over real-world images captured by the 3DS’s cameras) are at issue. The 3DS’s other applications, including its 3D display, do not rely on the `664 patent.”
Continue reading

After the jury returned a verdict of $5 million, the district court denied the parties’ post-judgment motions, including plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, which was the only post-judgment motion filed by plaintiff. The district court then entered judgment on the jury verdict.

The defendants then appealed from the judgment and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed on all grounds, denied rehearing, and did not remand any issues to the district court. The plaintiff then filed motions seeking prejudgment interest in the amount of $655,636 and royalties for ongoing willful infringement. Defendants asserted that the judgment had been paid in full and therefore the motions should be denied.
Continue reading

After a jury trial in which plaintiff Summit 6 was awarded $15 million against Samsung, Summit 6 moved for an award of future, ongoing royalties to compensate it for Samsung’s continued infringement after the verdict. Summit 6’s motion was based on the argument that the jury’s verdict only compensated it for Samsung’s past infringement up to the point of trial.

On the verdict form, the jury added the words “lump sum” under the $15 million amount. In its motion, Summit 6 argued that the jury instruction did not define “lump sum,” nor did the jury instructions explain that a lump sum award would be through the life of the patent, instead of up to the date of trial. Samsung argued in response that the jury understood that “lump sum” covered both past and future infringement, citing to specific testimony during trial defining the term “lump sum.”
Continue reading

After Syntrix Biosystems, Inc. (“Syntrix”) filed a patent infringement action against Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”), a jury returned a verdict against Illumina for patent infringement and awarded a reasonable royalty of 6%. Syntrix subsequently filed a motion for an ongoing royalty in the amount of 9% instead of seeking a permanent injunction.

The district court fist explained that after a jury verdict of infringement, a district court may award an ongoing royalty for continued patent infringement. See Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The parties should ordinarily be given an opportunity to negotiate a license regarding future use of the patented invention, but if they are unable to reach agreement, the district court can “step in to assess a reasonable royalty in light of the ongoing infringement.” Id.
Continue reading

After Fujitsu Limited (“Fujitsu”) filed a patent infringement action against Tellabs, Inc. (“Tellabs”), Tellabs filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of lost profits. As explained by the district court, Fujitsu Limited, a Japanese corporation, is the sole owner of two United States patents that Fujitsu Limited asserted in the litigation, U.S. Patent No. 5,521,737 (“137 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163 (“163 Patent”). Although Fujitsu Limited owns the patents, which relate to telecommunications systems, Fujitsu Limited does not sell any telecommunications systems in the United States. Sales of Fujitsu Limited’s patented telecommunications systems in the United States are made by a non-exclusive licensee, its wholly-owned United States subsidiary FNC, which is a California corporation and headquartered in Richmond, Texas.

Tellabs contended in its motion “that (1) Fujitsu Limited is not entitled to damages in the form of the lost profits because it sells no products in the United States and (2) Fujitsu Limited cannot claim the lost profits of its North American subsidiary and non-exclusive licensee, Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.” The district court explained that Fujitsu Limited sought to recover the profits that were allegedly lost by its domestic subsidiary, FNC, due to Tellabs’ sales of the allegedly infringing systems pursuant to the 2005 Verizon and 2006 Quest contracts that Tellabs obtained.
Continue reading

Promega Corporation (“Promega”) filed a patent infringement action against Life Technologies Corporation (“Life Technologies”), among others, over four patents pertaining to a type of DNA testing called “multiplex amplification of shorten tandem repeat loci.” Prior to trial, the district court determined that two of the defendants sell testing kits that met limitations for one or more claims in patents that Promega owns. At trial, a question remained as to whether the defendants were engaging in acts prohibited by the Patent Act because many of the accused products were manufactured and sold in foreign countries.

At trial, Promega asserted that under Section 271 of the Patent Act the defendants foreign sales of infringing products violated the Patent Act because a substantial portion of the components of the accused products were supplied from the United States. Promega asked the jury to find that all of defendants’ sales met the requirements of Section 271. The jury agreed with plaintiff and awarded more than $50 million in damages.
Continue reading