Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation and AVX Filters Corporation
Post-Halo, obtaining invalidity and non-infringement opinions of counsel before litigation can reduce likelihood of willfulness finding if infringement is later proven.
Results for enhanced damages
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,
A district court’s decision regarding enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 should be reviewed for abuse of discretion and not under the framework previously set forth in In re Seagate
Juicy Whip Inc. v. Orange Bang Inc.
Lost profits, according to the “entire market value rule,” may be recovered based on the value of the entire device including non-patented materials or components provided that a functional relationship exists between the patented device and the unpatented material or component. A functional relationship between a patented device and an unpatented material used with the device is not precluded by the fact that the device can be used with other materials, or that the unpatented material can be used with other devices.
Metabolite Laboratories Inc. v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings
In the District Court for the District of Colorado, a jury found that Laboratory Corporation indirectly infringed Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.’s (Metabolite’s) ‘658 patent. The district court doubled the infringement award for willful infringement and issued a permanent injunction.
NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd.
Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages for infringement of patents for wireless e-mail transmission system, since defendant’s investigation of infringement accusations was insufficient to meet its duty of care, and in view of its significant investment income from infringing products, defendant can withstand award of enhanced damages.