Enhancement, Attorneys Fees and Injunctions
One out of three’s not … well, maybe it is. And check out the forum selection comment.
Enhanced Damages – 35 USC 284
A Pox on Both Your JMOLs
Most JMOLs get denied. That was certainly the case here following a damages retrial.
Redo on Enhanced Damages Award
Following remand, Judge Gilstrap recalculated the enhanced damages award.
Request for Exceptional Case Finding After Jury Verdict
Judge Gilstrap ruled on the plaintiff’s request for a finding of exceptional case and attorneys fees.
No Enhanced Damages In Apple Case
The judgment included a single paragraph denying enhancement despite the willfulness finding.
Enhanced Damages After Willful Infringement?
Not in this case, which discusses some time management issues at trial.
Waco Limine, Expert & SJ Rulings
You only get pretrial rulings when a case makes it to pretrial, which makes this set of limine, expert and SJ rulings from Judge Albright especially significant.
What A Redacted Waco Order on Enhanced Damages & Fees Looks Like
See the difference a simple redaction makes, compared to the unredacted version a couple of days ago? Graceful and elegant, full of fees and fluffed damages, this is an order you’re really going to enjoy.
“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 …
Postverdict rulings – damages and royalty rate enhanced
These postverdict orders arise out of a case tried last fall, and resolved the parties’ disputes over whether the jury’s damages award should be enhanced, and an ongoing royalty established.