Category Archives: Damages

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 , , , ,

Courts Must Apply Phillips  Standard to Determine Claim Scope for Intervening Rights Inquiry

Author: W. Caroline Chen, Ph.D.
Editor: Jeff T. Watson

In Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., No. 14-1732 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement based on its determination that liability was precluded by intervening rights.

Convolve filed suit against Seagate and Compaq in 2000, alleging, among other things, infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,473. While the litigation was pending, the 473 patent underwent reexamination. During reexamination, the patentee added the word “seek” in front of “acoustic noise” in the claims in response to a prior-art rejection. On remand from a prior appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court adopted the examiner’s finding that the “acoustic noise” was not limited to “seek acoustic noise” and held that patent infringement liability was precluded by intervening rights arising from the substantive amendment to the claims.

Continue reading

Tagged , , ,