Judge Sue L. Robinson recently granted in part a motion for judgment as a matter of law on damages “because defendant did not present opinion testimony from an expert witness on damages, and ‘the amount of damages has not been put in dispute.'” Ironworks Patents, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Civ. No. 10-258-SLR (D. Del. June 12, 2017). The motion sought an increase in the $3 million damages awarded by the jury to $17.9 million, the amount proposed by the plaintiff’s expert and unrebutted by any defense expert. The defendant argued that because the burden of proving damages was on the plaintiff, it was not required to “disprove” the damages theory of the plaintiff’s expert. The Court explained, though, that “once a plaintiff has come forward with ‘reliable and sufficient evidence’ supporting its damages theory, the burden shifts to the defendant. Id. at 24. Here, the defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s damages theory through actual expert evidence (as opposed to attorney argument). The jury’s award of $3 million, the Court found, was below the lowest amount discussed by the plaintiff’s expert, which the Court found was supported by sufficient evidence. Id. at 27. The Court therefore adjusted the damages award to $8,940,544, the lowest amount discussed by the plaintiff’s expert. Id.
On March 24, the jury in Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola Mobility, C.A. No. 11-908-SLR, returned a verdict of direct, contributory, and induced infringement for plaintiff for one of the patents-in-suit. For the patent the jury found not infringed, it also found that this patent was invalid as obvious.
UPDATE: The Court released an additional verdict sheet in this case regarding different patent-in-suit. For this third patent, the jury returned a verdict of direct, contributory, and induced infringement for plaintiff.
(Feb. 6, 2015 ) In the second verdict of the day from the District of Delaware, a jury awarded Intellectual Ventures I LLC a sum of $17 million from Symantec Corporation for infringement of two of three asserted patents, in the case of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corporation, C.A. No. 10-1067-LPS.
In an unrelated patent infringement verdict rendered from the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building earlier in the day, a jury awarded Sprint $27.6M from Comcast.
On January 27, 2015, the jury in Round Rock Research, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation, C.A. No. 12-569-SLR returned a verdict finding infringement of some claims, but invalidity as to both patents-in-suit. The jury found some asserted claims of both patents-in-suit had been directly infringed, but none of the asserted claims were indirectly infringed. However, the jury also found all of asserted claims invalid as anticipated or obvious.
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.
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.