21 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Damages"'.
J. Stadtmueller finds the lower court properly entered default judgment against a wholesaler, as evidence is sufficient to show it was served notice and did not defend this patent and trademark infringement action. The tool designers are entitled to statutory damages, attorney fees and costs, and equitable relief as they have established the wholesaler is liable for patent infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and trade dress infringement relating to a roof climbing tool, but the instant court dismisses the tool designers’ claim of unfair competition. Affirmed in part.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Stadtmueller, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1526, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Trademark, damages
J. Kasubhai grants the software company's motion for attorney fees for remand proceedings relating to its complaint that the adhesive manufacturing company copied the protected design of the software company's patent for its serial number encoder. The adhesive manufacturing company's conduct during litigation makes this case exceptional, so fees are appropriate. The software company is also entitled to prejudgment interest of 9% to the $36 million damages portion of the initial final judgment.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages, Attorney Fees
J. Bryson grants default judgment against a company that sells body sculpting devices that allegedly infringe an plaintiff's patents and trademarks by ordering removal of all infringing website content. However, money damages should be denied for lack of supporting evidence as to the number of infringing products that had been sold.
Court: USDC Delaware, Judge: Bryson, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv359, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Trademark, damages
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Brown denies a series of motions that seek to overturn a jury’s verdict that found a product manufacturer infringed on the Wallet Ninja product, a popular multipurpose tool, and awarded the tool’s patentholder $1.85 million in damages. The court finds the jury had enough evidence to conclude a collaborator who worked on the product’s design did not substantially contributed to the design to call into question the patent’s ownership or that the jury’s award for damages under a loss profits theory was improper. The court further grants a request for enhanced damages and awards the patentholder an additional $1.536 million in attorney fees, expert fees and costs.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Brown, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv3067, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages
J. Brodie awards a professional tennis equipment manufacturer $118,960 in lost profits on its patent infringement claims related to its let-detection systems. The court finds the manufacturer’s estimate, that it lost approximately $120,000 over a two-year period due to the infringer’s actions, to be reasonable and further applies a reduction of $1,040 for fixed costs associated with producing 16 units for the 2019 and 2020 U.S. Open tournaments.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Brodie, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2205, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages, Technology
J. Teeter denies a military fuel can manufacturer's motion for court costs concerning infringement claims brought by a no- spill gas can maker. The no- spill products maker sufficiently showed in court that the military fuel can manufacturer is not entitled to court costs based on its non-prevailing status in a "split- judgment case."
Court: USDC Kansas, Judge: Teeter, Filed On: October 6, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2420, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages
J. Burroughs partially grants judgment as a matter of law in favor of a pharmaceutical company being sued by another pharmaceutical company for patent infringement. Eli Lilly and Co.'s motion "is granted insofar as the patents-in-suit are invalid on the basis of inadequate written description and lack of enablement." However, its motion is denied as to the issue of future lost profits. The other company's expert based his future lost profit calculations on actual data as well as on Lilly's projections, and explained how he arrived at his own projections. The evidence that the jury relied on was not "impermissible speculation and guesswork," as argued by Lilly.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Burroughs, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv12029, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages, Experts
J. Behm dismisses infringement claims involving U.S. Patent No. 8,163,802, a nasal application that inhibits airborne particles from causing infection, because defendant failed to provide documentation of sales or royalties in order to demonstrate entitlement to lost profits.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Judge: Behm, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv10312, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages
J. Chun partially denies the global semiconductor's motion to exclude the qualitative apportionment opinions of the fabless semiconductor company's expert, Lauren R. Kindler, in a patent lawsuit. Kindler's qualitative apportionment opinions are sufficiently reliable.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv1503, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages, Experts
J. Chesler rules against the parties in claims contending televisions sold by an electronics competitor infringed patent no. 7,475,180 because evidence does not indicate the competitor's televisions copied any element of those sold by plaintiff. Meanwhile, evidence does not indicate plaintiff suffered increased damages related to the disparity between treasury bill rates and commercial interest rates from royalty payments.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Chesler , Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 2:15cv4431, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, damages