Category Archives: Royalties

TEK Global, et al. v. Sealant Systems Int., Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2017-2507 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 29, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement, damages, and grant of PI affirmed; SSI granted a new trial on invalidity (on remand, DC improperly foreclosed SSI from presenting new obviousness theories). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Lost Profits, Means-plus-function, Royalties | Leave a comment

SRI Int., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2223 LOURIE (D), O’MALLEY, STOLL March 20, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding of patent eligibility under § 101 affirmed; award of attorney fees vacated and remanded “solely for recalculation”. Summary: Cisco appealed DC denial of its motion for … Continue reading

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

Enplas Display Device Corp. et al. v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

Docket Nos. 2016-2599 NEWMAN, HUGHES, STOLL Nov. 19, 2018 Brief summary: DC findings of no anticipation affirmed; damages award vacated (e.g., “damages calculated by applying a royalty rate to sales of non-accused lenses cannot support a jury’s verdict on damages”). … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Contributory Infringement, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Royalties | Leave a comment

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

Docket No. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 DYK, CLEVENGER, CHEN July 3, 2018 (updated September 25, 2018) Update: Original opinion modified on Sept. 20, 2018 following a petition for rehearing filed by Power Integrations (PI) but the same decisions were reached (DC claim … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Royalties | 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

Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2315, -2341 MOORE, BRYSON, HUGHES March 8, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of § 101 eligibility affirmed as “the inventor” here “transformed the process into an inventive application”; jury determinations of infringement and damages affirmed for the … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Lost Profits, Patentability, Royalties | 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

Promega Corporation et al. v. Life Technologies Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2013-1011, -1029, -1376 PROST, MAYER, CHEN November 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of Life’s motion for JMOL that Promega failed to prove infringement under § 271(a) and (f)(1), and its “vacatur of the [DC’s] denial of Promega’s … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Lost Profits, Royalties | Leave a comment

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1729 TARANTO, CHEN, STOLL April 17, 2017 Brief Summary: DC claim construction based on prosecution history estoppel affirmed (“patentee’s use of ‘i.e.,’ in the intrinsic record…is often definitional”). DC non-obviousness conclusion affirmed. Royalty calculation affirmed. FC found “disclaimer … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Inter Parties Review (IPR), Obviousness, Patent Marking, Royalties | Leave a comment