Posts Tagged: "damages"

Power Integrations, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,079 (“the ‘079 patent”) and 6,538,908 (“the ‘908 patent”). Power Integrations sued Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively “Fairchild”) for infringement. A jury found Fairchild literally infringed the ‘079 patent and infringed the ‘908 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury subsequently awarded damages of $140 million, applying the entire market value rule in calculating damages. Fairchild appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgments of infringement, but concluded that the entire market value rule was inappropriately used in this case to calculate damages.

We reached out to our distinguished panel of industry insiders, and the initial reaction is this decision is a clear win for patent owners. Efrat Kasznik: “The expansion of lost profits to include foreign lost profits enhances the ability of a patent owner to recover the appropriate amount damages that would make them whole, without artificially excluding foreign lost profit damages from the pool of available damages. It’s economic justice.” Ronald Abramson: “Today’s decision in WesternGeco is clearly a win for patent owners, though the Court made considerable efforts to limit its ruling…”

Earlier today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., which in a 7-2 decision ruled that a patent owner may recover lost foreign profits for infringement under 35 U. S. C. 271(f)(2). The question decided, as set forth in the opinion by Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, was: “The question in this case is whether these statutes allow the patent owner to recover for lost foreign profits.” Thomas simply answered the question in the opening paragraph saying: “We hold that they do.”

In a remarkable judgment of 10 January 2018 a court in the Netherlands ordered a hosting provider to make a legitimate website permanently inaccessible because it was “part of an unlawful concept”. The plaintiffs in this case have been harassed on the internet by a non-existing organization called G|A|B|M|E, which supposedly stands for ‘Global Advisory Board Middle East’. One of the plaintiffs received an e-mail on 1 December 2017 warning him that in a few hours a “report” would be released revealing him, his companies and some employees as frauds. Indeed, a few hours later a publication was distributed via the internet with the title ‘International Security and Fraud Alert Iranian Fraud’. In this publication (the ‘report’) the plaintiff, his companies and some employees were wrongly accused of fraud, corruption and money laundering… The decision has definitely broadened the liability of hosting providers and has rendered those who are the victims of defamation a new tool to fight accusations on the internet, but one has to bear in mind that the circumstances of this case were and are exceptional.

Patent damages law is one of the most complex areas in patent law and it is constantly evolving. Attorneys and courts often confuse the principles and get the law wrong. Further, even without the backdrop of constantly evolving and complex damages law, proving damages at trial is one of the hardest aspects of patent litigation. And properly apportioning damages can be one of the most difficult aspects of damages law to get right. The Federal Circuit’s two recent decisions in Exmark Man. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., No. 2016-2197, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2018) and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 2016-2520, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018) shed light on calculating damages for multi-component products. Together, these cases show that the royalty rate must be apportioned based on the incremental value the novel elements add to conventional elements of a claim, while the royalty base must be apportioned based on the incremental value the patented features add to the accused product.

In invalidating the Idenix patent, the Delaware district court effectively overturns what had been the largest award for royalty damages in a U.S. patent infringement case ever handed out. After a two-week trial in December 2016, the jury had awarded Index $2.64 billion in damages, which was based on finding Gilead infringed the Idenix patent – U.S. Patent No. 7,608,597 — by selling the hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments Harvoni and Sovaldi.

A jury verdict awarded more than $26 million to a group of plaintiffs including San Diego, CA-based gene analysis firm Illumina, Inc. The jury found that Ariosa Diagnostics infringed upon two patents, awarding $15.7 million in lost profits to Illumina and nearly $11 million in lost profits to Verinata Health… In the recent jury verdict, both Illumina and Verinata lost on willful infringement arguments made against Ariosa during the trial. However, the validity of both patents was confirmed after being challenged by Ariosa during the case.

While Exmark invites a more flexible approach to apportionment, allowing, at least in some cases, a focus on the royalty rate to value the patented invention, the rate analysis itself must be properly supported. Indeed, Exmark serves as a cautionary reminder that any expert opinions on reasonable royalty damages must be closely tied to the facts of the case. Damages opinions that are purely speculative and unsupported by the facts of the case are likely to be found inadmissible. As a result, apportionment approaches will continue to be case-specific, variously focusing on the royalty base, the royalty rate, or a hybrid-model involving both elements.

The Supreme Court will hear WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., which asks whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)… Because lost profits damages were awarded for lost contracts for services to be performed on the high seas, outside of the jurisdiction of U.S. patent law, the Federal Circuit reversed that $93.4 million award… In December 2017, the office of Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae. The Solicitor General argued that WesternGeco’s entitlement to damages should be informed by the traditional common-law rule that a victim of a tort should be returned to the position that victim would have occupied if not for the defendant’s legal wrong.

Exmark Manufacturing was awarded $24 million in compensatory damages after a jury found that Briggs and Stratton infringed Exmark’s patent on a lawn mower with improved flow control baffles. The award was doubled by the court, after a finding that Briggs and Stratton’s infringement was willful. On appeal, Briggs challenged six holdings: (1) summary judgment that claim 1 was not anticipated or obvious; (2) denial of summary judgment that claim 1 is indefinite; (3) denial of a new trial on damages; (4) evidentiary rulings related to damages; (5) denial of a new trial on willfulness; and, (6) denial of Brigg’s laches defense. The Federal Circuit vacated findings of willfulness and the underlying damages award, remanding to the trial court.

In Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., after unsuccessfully defending a patent infringement lawsuit, Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. (“BRP”) appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. BRP argued that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,568,969 (“the ‘969 patent”) and 6,793,545 (“the ‘545 patent”) were obvious, that patentee Arctic Cat failed to mark patented products, that the jury based its royalty award on improper expert testimony, and that BRP did not willfully infringe the asserted claims. BRP also appealed the district court’s award of treble damages and the ongoing royalty to Artic Cat… While the burden of persuasion under the statute is always on the patentee… the alleged infringer who challenges the patentee’s compliance with the marking statute has the initial burden of production because placing the burden on the patentee “could lead to a large-scale fishing expedition.”

In Promega Corporation v. Life Technologies Corporation, on remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit affirmed district court rulings that granted Life Technologies’ motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that Promega Corp. had failed to prove its infringement case under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and § 271(f)(1), and subsequently denied Promega’s motion for a new trial.

On Monday, October 16th, the Internet security company VirnetX (AMEX:VHC) of Zephyr Cove, NV, announced the results of a patent litigation campaign it had pursued against Cupertino, CA-based consumer tech giant Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL). According to a press release issued by VirnetX, the Eastern District of Texas increased the damages to be paid by Apple from $302.4 million in a prior jury verdict up to nearly $440 million for Apple’s infringement of patents covering secure communications in applications like FaceTime.

On Tuesday, September 19th, Victorinox AG, the manufacturer of the well-known Swiss army knife, saw a successful outcome of an appeal decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which affirmed in part a judgment in a trademark case filed in the Southern District of New York. The 2nd Circuit’s decision upholds a $1.75 million judgment entered in district court against Dallas, TX-based e-commerce company B&F System over the sale of red-handled, multi-functional pocket knives that infringed upon Victorinox’s registered trademark.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo, there have been approximately 100 cases analyzing whether the adjudged infringer acted egregiously/willfully en route to a determination of whether to enhance a damages award (and, if so, to what degree damages should be enhanced). The issue of egregiousness/willfulness and/or enhanced damages has been the subject of Federal Circuit opinions on seven occasions since Halo. With two exceptions noted herein regarding the availability of enhanced damages for infringement occurring after suit has been filed, these cases do not provide much in the way of additional guidance other than re-tracing the evolution of the law governing egregiousness/willfulness and enhanced damages through Seagate and Halo and re-iterating the standards discussed in Halo. In five of the seven relevant post-Halo cases the Federal Circuit remanded for further consideration in light of the new standards set forth in Halo.