News & Analysis as of

Damages Patent Infringement

Jones Day

Japanese Court Shatters Previous Record for Damages Award in a Patent Infringement Case

Jones Day on

On May 27, 2025, the Intellectual Property High Court of Japan awarded plaintiff Toray Industries, Inc. ("Toray") ¥21.76 billion (US$151 million; €133 million) in damages for patent infringement by defendants Sawai...more

Quinn Emanuel

Federal Judge Rules on Patent Damages Issue in Mallinckrodt v. Airgas Case

Quinn Emanuel on

A Delaware federal judge has issued a decision regarding the date that a hypothetical negotiation would have taken place, a decision that impacts the amount of damages that could be recovered in the patent dispute between...more

Fish & Richardson

Brumfield and Its Wake: Extraterritorial Sales in Reasonable Royalty Damages

Fish & Richardson on

In 2024, the Federal Circuit set forth a standard for determining whether extraterritorial sales activity could be considered in a reasonable royalty award for patent infringement. Here, we summarize the court’s opinion in...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Federal Circuit Vacates $4.7 Million Patent Infringement Verdict

The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant decision in the ongoing patent litigation between Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) and Qiagen Sciences, LLC, reversing a Delaware district court’s judgment...more

Fish & Richardson

Developing Issues in Patent Damages: Future Royalties

Fish & Richardson on

Increasingly, plaintiffs in patent infringement suits are projecting sales through the expiration of the patent, discounting for present value, and then calling the resulting figure a “lump sum” royalty. ...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury finding of infringement from the District...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

It’s Not Over Till It’s Over: Judge McMahon Issues Final Judgment in Favor of Geigtech After Two Bench Trials and Two Jury...

On August 14, 2025, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) issued a Final Judgment in favor of plaintiff Geigtech East Bay LLC (“Geigtech”) in the total amount of $5,951,153.15. See Geigtech E. Bay LLC v. Lutron Elecs. Co, Case No....more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 1, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd., et al. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) July 28, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen and Hughes....more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Patent Damages Based on Avoided Costs Do Not Invoke the Entire Market Value Rule

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a...more

A&O Shearman

Evidence Exclusion And Daubert Motion Denials Must Be Supported By Valid Legal Rule And Reasoning; Damage Calculation Must Account...

A&O Shearman on

In Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the judgment in a patent infringement case involving three patents owned by Jiaxing Super...more

Venable LLP

Jury Finds Botox® Patent Claims Nonobvious and Awards Damages from Daxxify® Sales

Venable LLP on

On July 18, 2025, after a five-day trial, the jury in Allergan v. Revance Case No. 1:21-cv-01411 (D. Del.) entered a verdict finding claim 8 of Allergan’s U.S. Patent No. 7,354,740 (“the ’740 patent”), claim 6 of U.S. Patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Cancellation of a Closely Related Claim During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel

Knobbe Martens on

COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more

Lathrop GPM

Federal Circuit Says Claim Cancellation Can Create Prosecution History Estoppel

Lathrop GPM on

In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The UPC – Two Years On

The Unified Patent Court – a one-stop-shop for European patent litigation – is now two years old. As it enters its third year of operation, we look at the approach that is becoming established in the new system, drawing out...more

WilmerHale

Google Victory Is First Step to Address Patent Damages Imbalance

WilmerHale on

Patents are a mutually beneficial agreement between inventors and the government. Each side makes concessions in service of their own, and the greater, good. It’s a careful balance, where policy and rules that are too...more

Jenner & Block

Two Federal Circuit Decisions Nullify Nine-Figure Damages Awards

Jenner & Block on

In two June 2025 decisions, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected patent infringement jury verdicts for $218.5 million and $300 million—one reversed for claiming patent ineligible subject matter, and the other vacated...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Return to Real (Pre-eBay) Injunctive Relief?

In a rare occurrence, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and USPTO submitted a joint “Statement of Interest of the United States of America” (DOJ Statement) in support of injunctive relief in a district court patent case: Radian...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Federal Circuit Vacates $300 Million Verdict Against Apple, Orders Third Trial in LTE Patent Dispute

In a pivotal ruling for patent damages and standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation, the Federal Circuit vacated a $300 million award against Apple in a long-standing dispute with Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. See Optis...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Government Signals Potential Shift Toward Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Cases

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In a recent patent case, the U.S. government urged a Texas federal court to give greater weight to the difficulty of calculating damages as a basis for finding irreparable harm. If embraced by courts, the move could give...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Vacates $300 Million Damages Award Due To Flawed Verdict Form

A&O Shearman on

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to...more

Knobbe Martens

A Question for Everyone: Juries Must Determine Infringement on a Patent-By-Patent Basis

Knobbe Martens on

OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. APPLE INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Patent plaintiffs have a right to a unanimous verdict on each...more

Hudnell Law Group

Federal Circuit Enforces Gatekeeping Role in Patent Damages Testimony

Hudnell Law Group on

On May 21, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a $20 million damages award against Google LLC in a patent infringement dispute with EcoFactor, Inc. EcoFactor, Inc. v....more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Vacates Jury Verdict and Damages for Multiple Errors

On June 16, in Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court on multiple grounds, including § 101 patent eligibility and trial procedure, in vacating infringement...more

Knobbe Martens

Running in Place: When a Running Royalty Is Actually a Lump Sum License

Knobbe Martens on

ECOFACTOR, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC - Before the en banc court, Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A district...more

448 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 18

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide