Redo on Enhanced Damages Award
Following remand, Judge Gilstrap recalculated the enhanced damages award.
Enhanced Damages – 35 USC 284
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.
VirnetX – JMOL, MNT, enhanced damages & attorneys fees rulings
A trip to the West Coast for a mediation kept me from posting this earlier, but Judge Schroeder’s unredacted opinion in the VirnetX case resolving the postverdict motions is now out, and provides the latest analysis on many issues of interest to practitioners, including most notably enhanced damages, as none were awarded.
Ericsson $75 million verdict reinstated; damages enhanced $25 million; no attorneys fees
After a four-day trial in December, a Marshall jury in Judge Roy Payne’s court found that Defendant TCL willfully infringed claims 1 and 5 of United States Patent No. 7,149,510 asserted by Plaintiff Ericsson by selling phones and devices equipped with the Google Android operating system, and the jury awarded $75 million as a lump sum royalty.
The court previously ordered a new trial on damages after finding Ericsson’s damages theory unreliable, but last Thursday the Court reconsidered that order, reinstated the jury’s verdict in full, and resolved all other remaining disputes, i.e. TCL’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and Ericsson’s motions for enhanced damages and attorney’s fees.