An Indefinite Smile

I challenge you to find a happier 16 year old than this one, who spent the first day of his summer vacation getting some stick time in a World War II trainer, as reported by the local paper. He was, in fact, smiling as broadly as I expect the defendants were when they got Judge Kernodle’s 122 page claim construction order in this 11 patent case raising over 30 terms, which addressed their indefiniteness arguments. They did pretty well.

“Flagrant” – enhanced damages, exceptional case status & injunctions

I have posted many times on the Tinnus v. Telebrands litigation, which involves water balloon patents. Another order is now out, this time involving postverdict motions including recovery of enhanced damages and attorneys fees for “exceptional” case status, as well as and entry of a permanent injunction. It is one readers will want to study, as it contains some actions that are extraordinary – even by patent litigation standards. When a court’s order uses the term “flagrantly” multiple times, you know things are about to get very interesting. There is much to be learned here, so let’s begin …

From stay to verdict

This time the verdict is from Tyler, where a jury passed on a claim that had been stayed previously while proceedings played themselves out at the PTAB. The jury found the single asserted claim infringed, that the claim wasn’t shown by clear and convincing evidence to be invalid, and assessed damages of $1.5 million. I have attached the verdict form and some other tidbits I thought might be of interest on the stay issue.