On Tuesday, the jury in Interdigital Communications, Inc., et al. v. ZTE Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 13-009-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2014) returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, finding all asserted claims of the three patents-in-suit infringed and not invalid.
This week, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12-205-RGA-CJB (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2014). The jury found that plaintiff had proven infringement of all asserted claims and awarded $7.5 million in damages.
This week, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in this case. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 09-80-LPS (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2014). The jury found plaintiff’s patents not invalid as anticipated, obvious, for lack of written description, not enabled, and indefinite. Furthermore, the jury found that a certain product was not an acceptable non-infringing substitute. Defendants had previously conceded infringement. The jury awarded plaintiff $466,744,783 in damages for infringement.
Defendants had one remaining asserted patent against plaintiff. The jury also found that plaintiff had not literally or indirectly infringed this patent.
Last week, a District of Delaware jury unanimously found in favor of Intellectual Ventures in its patent infringement suit against Canon. Intellectual Ventures asserted two patents related to semiconductor image sensors against various Canon digital cameras and video-cameras. The jury found that both patents were valid in the face of obviousness challenges and challenges to inventorship. The jury also found one of the two patents infringed by three Canon products. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Canon Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-792-SLR, Verdict Sheet at 2-3 (D. Del. May 2, 2014).
Separately from these jury determinations, Judge Robinson entered an order construing the term “digital image magnification in a graphical user interface” as used in a third patent-in-suit, which was not a subject of the jury verdict. Her Honor explained that a claim construction disputed had arisen “as the parties’ experts dispute the meaning of ‘digital image magnification,’ the proper scope of which must be determined before presentation to a jury.” Judge Robinson adopted the construction “expanding image data – which may be represented in the form of pixels, a page description language, or any other form – on the screen of a digital device.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Canon Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-792-SLR, Memo. Or. at 1-2 (D. Del. May 5, 2014).
A few days later, the same District of Delaware jury has found in favor of Canon on two other patents. The jury returned a verdict last Friday finding that various Canon had not induced infringement by selling various cameras that included certain features. The jury also found, however, that the two patents at issue were not invalid for anticipation or obviousness. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Canon Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-792-SLR, Verdict Sheet at 2-4 (D. Del. May 9, 2014).
On April 1, 2014, a jury returned a verdict in Silver Peak Systems, Inc. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., C.A. No. 11-484-RGA-CJB (D. Del.), finding that Riverbed Technology, Inc. (“Riverbed”) infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,945,736 (the “’736 Patent”) and 7,948,921 (the “’921 Patent”) asserted by Silver Peak Systems, Inc. Specifically, the jury found that Riverbed directly infringed claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and 17 of the ’736 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents, and that Riverbed contributorily infringed those same claims. Further, the jury found that Riverbed induced infringement of claim 1 of the ’921 Patent.
The jury also found that claim 1 of the ’921 patent was not anticipated.
In the longstanding patent and contract action between Personalized User Model and Google, a jury returned a verdict last week. The verdict form shows that the jury found no literal infringement by any Google product of any asserted claim and that the jury found both anticipation and obviousness for each asserted claim. In addition, the jury sided with Google on breach of contract claims, finding that the statute of limitations for the claim was tolled, that Google had acquired the right to assert the breach of contract claim, that Google had proven the breach of contract claim, and that the California Labor Code did not exempt the breach of contract.
On February 28, the jury in Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation, C.A. No. 08-874-RGA returned a verdict. The jury found that defendant had infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,835,465 and calculated damages to be $40,320. However, the jury also found that the asserted claims were invalid as obvious. The jury found that defendant had not met its burden to show that these claims were incalid for failing to meet the best mode requirement.
As to U.S. Patent No. 6,892,861, the jury found that defendant did not infringe the asserted claims, and that the asserted claims were also invalid as obvious. The jury also found this patent invalid for failing to meet the best mode requirement.
Finally, the jury found that both patents-in-suit had not named the correct inventors.
We previously reported on Judge Sleet’s in limine rulings directed to Section 271(f) and European Patent Office proceedings in patent litigation related to aortic valve stents between Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic Corevalve. After a jury trial last week, the jury awarded Edwards Lifesciences lost profit damages and reasonable royalties.
The verdict form has been made public and shows that the jury found direct infringement, willful infringement, infringement pursuant to Section 271(f), and that the patents-in-suit were valid. The jury awarded $388.8 million of lost profits and $4.8 million of reasonable royalty for infringing sales not subject to lost profits.
In L-3 Communications Corp. v. Sony Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10-734-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2013), the jury returned a verdict finding that defendants had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,654 were invalid. Prior to trial, Judge Andrews had granted plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment on that patent’s validity.
After trial regarding infringement of Netgear, Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,621,454 and 7,263,143, the jury returned a verdict finding the patents valid and finding that Netgear had not proved that Ruckus Wireless, Inc. infringed the patents. Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 10-999-SLR (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2013). The Court’s pretrial decisions and claim construction can be found here, here, and here.