Category Archives: Remedies

Lack of Jurisdiction Flatlines Pulse’s Appeal

Author: Razi Safi*
Editor: Lily Robinson

The Federal Circuit in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 16-2006 (May 26, 2017) held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1292(c)(2) to hear an appeal from a district court’s order regarding prejudgment interest because it was not a “final decision.” The district court awarded Halo prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and supplemental damages for direct infringement but did not set the total amount of prejudgment interest or the beginning date for interest calculations. Instead, it ordered Halo to prepare an updated calculation of the interest amounts. Pulse appealed the order to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit concluded, however, that because the district court had not resolved the parties’ dispute, the order was not a final decision imparting jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1). Moreover, the appeal was not proper under § 1292(c)(2), which provides an accounting exception to the finality requirement, because the prejudgment-interest award in the case was not final. Section 1292(c)(2), the Court noted, should be interpreted narrowly and thus does not allow the Court to hear an appeal arising from a non-final order, even if the order is related to the accounting. The Federal Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

 

*Razi Safi is a Summer Associate at Finnegan. Continue reading

Tagged

No Abuse of Discretion in Awarding Prejudgment Interest Based in Part on Patents Not Yet Issued at the Time of Hypothetical Negotiation

Author: Yoonhee Kim  
Editor: Esther H. Lim

In Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., No. 2015-1992 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that Sprint infringed patents owned by Comcast and a $7.5 million damages award with prejudgment interest.  Continue reading

Tagged ,

Federal Circuit Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Trial Court’s Refusal to Exclude Plaintiff’s Settlement Agreement with Defendant’s Competitor

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). Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,