Category Archives: Damages

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Intersil Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2017-2388 DYK, O’MALLEY, HUGHES July 6, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision regarding trade secret misappropriation and damages, and patent infringement, affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded. Summary: This opinion is a modified opinion of that originally-issued on May 1, 2018. … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Injunction, Trade Secret | Leave a comment

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int., et al.

Docket No. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 DYK, CLEVENGER, CHEN July 3, 2018 Brief summary: DC claim constructions affirmed (e.g., no prosecution history estoppel) but damages determination based on the “entire market value rule” vacated and remanded since, e.g., PI “did not meet … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel, Royalties | Leave a comment

WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.

Docket No. 16-1011 PROST, MOORE, STOLL June 22, 2018 Brief summary: SCOTUS reversed the FC, holding that WG’s “award for [extraterritorial] lost profits was a permissible domestic application of §284”. Summary: WesternGeco (WG) sued Ion Geophysical (ION), alleging ION infringed … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Lost Profits, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solns., Inc. v. Intersil Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2121, -2208, -2235 DYK, BRYSON, TARANTO May 1, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision relating to trade secret misappropriation affirmed- and vacated-in-part (e.g., “Intersil did not misappropriate information that it already had” but did not show alleged trade secret … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Trade Secret, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2520 DYK, LINN, HUGHES January 10, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision that Finjan’s ‘844 patent is directed to § 101 patent eligible subject matter (“a new kind of file that enables a computer system to do things it … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Patentability, Royalties | Leave a comment

Arctic Cat Inv. V. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2017-1475 MOORE, PLAGER, STOLL December 7, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of BRP’s JMOL that the asserted claims would have been obvious and that the royalty, willfulness and trebling of damages were improper affirmed. Patent marking issue vacated … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Obviousness, Obviousness-Teaching Away, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment