On March 27, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion, affirming a United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “district court”) decision relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,676,411 (the “’411 patent”); 7,813,996 (the “’996 patent”); 6,766,304 (the “’304 patent”); and 6,772,132 (the “’132 patent”), (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The district court held the asserted claims of the ’411 and ’996 patents invalid, and a jury found the asserted claims of the ’304 and ’132 patents valid and infringed and awarded $6,610,985 in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Brumfield, Tr. for Ascent Tr. v. IBG LLC, No. 2022-1630, __F.4th__, 2024 WL 1292151 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024). 

On December 4, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion, affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (the “district court” or “Western District”) that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,523,353 (the “’353 patent”) and 7,725,759 (the “’759 patent”), (collectively, the “asserted patents”) were infringed and damages should be awarded. VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2022-1906, 2023 WL 8360083 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2023). More specifically, the Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement of the ’373 patent but reversed the infringement of the ’759 patent; vacated the damages award for the ’373 patent; reversed the denial of Appellant’s, Intel Corporation (“Intel”), motion for leave to amend; and remanded the matter.

On October 16, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion that (i) reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California’s pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of nonobviousness, (ii) affirmed the district court’s decision to deny defendant’s pre-verdict and post-trial motions for JMOL regarding noninfringement, (iii) reversed the district court’s denial of defendant’s pre and post-trial motions to exclude the testimony of patent owner’s damages expert, (iv) vacated the lost profits award, and (v) remanded the case for further consistent proceedings.  Cyntec Co. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., No. 2022-1873, --F.4th.--, 2023 WL 6798376 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023).

On March 22, 2023, Circuit Judge Bryson, as visiting judge in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, ruled on competing motions about the next steps in a case where the patent plaintiff’s damages theories, as set forth in expert reports, had been repeatedly rejected by Delaware District Court judge Andrews. Judge Bryson allowed the case to proceed to trial, albeit with a very limited damages case. Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-WCB (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2023).

On March 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a redacted copy of its February 24, 2022 order striking plaintiff’s expert report on damages and excluding the testimony of its damages expert.  Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00073-ADA, Dkt. No. 173 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022).  The Court found the expert’s initial, timely-served report used the wrong parties in his hypothetical negotiation analysis and, for that reason, could not withstand defendant’s Daubert challenge.  On the other hand, the expert’s “supplemental” report re-doing his analysis with the correct parties was untimely and thus stricken.

On September 1, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that the District Court for the Central District of California erred in awarding damages for sales of infringing products prior to the date that the infringer received actual notice of infringement for failure to prove its compliance with the patent marking statute.  Lubby Holdings LLC v. Henry Chung, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sep. 1, 2021).

On August 26, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an order affirming orders from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California excluding certain opinions of plaintiff’s damages expert.  MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. August 26, 2021).  In its decision, the CAFC let stand the district court judge’s orders precluding plaintiff’s damages expert from characterizing certain license agreements as supporting his reasonable royalty rate determination.

On April 22, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted defendants’ motion opposing enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.  Wapp Tech Ltd. Partnership v. Seattle Spinco, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-469 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2021).  The Court found plaintiffs’ argument that defendants did not present a good faith defense unpersuasive, and instead ruled that the case “was a ‘garden-variety’ patent case, rather than an egregious case of misconduct.”

On January 6, 2021, Judge James V. Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted, in part, defendant Feit Electric Co., Inc.’s (“Feit”) motion for partial summary judgment related to plaintiff Zadro Prods, Inc.’s (“Zadro”) alleged failure to properly mark certain products.  Zadro Prods, Inc. v. Feit Electric Co., Inc., Case No. SACV-20-101-JVS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021).  Judge Selna found that:  (1) Zadro’s alleged failure to disclose that it marked its products in a discovery response was not grounds for summary judgment; (2) an issue of material fact remained as to whether Zadro’s products practiced one of the patents in suit; and (3) Zadro’s marking of the packaging of its products which practiced one of the patents in suit (rather than the products themselves) was insufficient under 35 U.S.C § 287.
 

On January 9, 2021, Judge Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted, in part, a request for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendant.  Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., case no. C 17-05659 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2021).  Judge Alsup found that plaintiff’s case stood out as exceptional in certain respects and, accordingly, issued a limited award for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
 

On February 19, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning the notice requirement for collecting back-damages in cases of patent infringement.  Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., ___ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2020).  In particular, the CAFC found that the statutory patent marking requirement continues to limit damages after a patentee or licensee ceases sales of unmarked products, and that willful infringement does not establish actual notice under the statute.  35 U.S.C. § 287. 
 

On November 19, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing in part a patent-infringement judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. November 19, 2018).  The CAFC ruled that the jury’s damages award was based on sales of non-infringing products, and reversed the District Court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law as to the damages award.

On July 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion in an appeal from a District Court decision in a patent-infringement case, affirming the District Court’s finding of patent validity, but vacating the District Court’s award of enhanced damages of two-and-a-half times the original damages amount. Polara Eng. Inc. v. Campbell Co., Appeal Nos. 2017-1974 and 2017-2033 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2018). The CAFC found that the District Court wrongly assessed the closeness of the case, and remanded the enhanced-damages issue to the District Court for further consideration.

On June 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on the issue of whether damages suffered overseas can be recovered as remedy for infringement under the U.S. patent laws. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. ____, case no. 16-1011. The Supreme Court ruled that such damages can be recoverable.

On May 19, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied a patent owner’s request for reconsideration of a decision that the patent owner had not complied with the marking statute, and that therefore its damages in the pending infringement case would be limited, pursuant to that statute.  Acantha LLC v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-C-1257 (E.D. Wis. May 19, 2018).  The Court rejected the patent owner’s argument that placing a patent notice in its surgical guide constituted sufficient marking.

Read more

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming liability of plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation claim, but vacating the monetary damages award.  Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., f/k/a Intersil Corp., Appeal Nos. 2016-2121, 2016-2208, and 2016-2235.  The Court held that plaintiff Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions (“TAOS”) did not have a jury trial right on its claim for disgorgement of defendant Intersil’s profits, since disgorgement is equitable in nature and was not historically heard by law courts, at least as it concerned intellectual property claims. 

Read more

On April 16, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, which presents the question whether a patent owner can recover damages suffered outside of the United States for infringing acts that occurred within the United States.

Read more

On January 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s decisions that a user-interface patent claims patentable subject matter and that unrebutted expert testimony did not require a jury to find anticipation, as well as its claim-construction decisions, all while damages issues remained unresolved in the trial court.  Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., appeals nos. 2016-2684 and 2017-1922.

Read more

​On January 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion considering the apportionment problem in patent damages and overturning a jury’s $40M reasonable-royalty award.  Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, appeal no. 2016-2520.
 
Read more