Author: Paula E. Miller
Editor: Jeff T. Watson
In Prism Technologies LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P, Nos. 16-1456, -1457 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Sprint’s motion for a new trial based on, among other things, the admission of a settlement agreement between Prism and Sprint’s competitor, AT&T.
Prism sued Sprint for the infringement of two patents relating to a system for managing access to protected computer resources. The jury found Sprint liable for infringement and awarded $30 million in reasonable-royalty damages. Sprint argued the district court erred for four reasons, including error in admitting a settlement agreement between AT&T and Prism regarding the patents-in-suit (and others).
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court did not err in admitting the AT&T Settlement Agreement. In reaching its determination, the Court explained that the probativeness and prejudice components of the Rule 403 balance must be assessed for each of the particular litigation settlements offered into evidence. As to the AT&T Settlement Agreement, the Court observed that Prism had submitted evidence to discern the value of the patents-in-suit and the other patents in the agreement, as well as evidence that compared how the technology was used by AT&T and Sprint. For these and other reasons, the Court found no abuse of discretion by the district court.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.