Category Archives: Willfullness

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

Georgetown Rail Equipment Company v. Holland L.P.

Docket No. 2016-2297 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH August 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction (preamble is not a limitation), willfulness, and enhanced damages ($1m) conclusions affirmed. Summary: Holland appealed the DC’s infringement ($1.5m awarded), claim construction, willfulness, … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Preamble, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Alfred E. Mann Foundation et al. (“AEM”) v. Cochlear Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2015-1580, -1606, -1607 NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES November 17, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision of indefiniteness of certain claims for failure to disclosure an algorithm affirmed; another found supported by “adequate defining structure”. Finding of no willfulness vacated and … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Software, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Stryker Corporation et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2013-1668 PROST, NEWMAN, HUGHES September 12, 2016 Brief Summary: FC panel affirmed DC finding of infringement, willfulness and no invalidity affirmed. Award of treble damages and attorneys fees vacated and remanded “because the standard for finding an exceptional … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, Damages, Infringement, Lost Profits, Obviousness, Patent Marking, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2013-1472, -1656 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, HUGHES August 5, 2016 Brief Summary: On remand from SCOTUS, DC decision of no willfulness based on Seagate test vacated and remanded (DC to “consider, as one factor in its analysis, what Pulse knew … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Willfullness | Leave a comment

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

Docket No. 2015-1038, -1044 MOORE, O’MALLEY, CHEN July 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC denial of JMOL to Kohler on obviousness and WD grounds affirmed. Decision of willfulness affirmed under Halo (US 2016) (“infringer’s subjective bad faith alone may support an … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness, Willfullness, Written description | Leave a comment

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. / Stryker Corporation et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al.

SCOTUS Docket Nos. 14-1513, -1520 June 13, 2016 Brief Summary: FC judgments finding neither Halo nor Stryker subject to enhanced damages under § 284 since the Seagate test “is unduly rigid, and it impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Damages, Willfullness | Leave a comment