Published on:

by

A federal district court in Texas has permanently enjoined a defendant from selling its accused products after the defendant told the jury it had voluntarily withdrawn those products from the market, received a modest damages award with no willfulness finding, and then announced it would resume selling the products anyway.

In Barco, Inc. v. Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd., the Court granted Barco’s motion for a permanent injunction, calling Yealink’s conduct a “bait-and-switch” and warning that denying the injunction “could be viewed as sanctioning Yealink’s gamesmanship, which would undermine the public’s interest in enforcing patent rights.”

Barco sued Yealink in November 2023 on six patents covering wireless presentation technology. Before trial, Yealink conceded direct and indirect infringement. The case was tried in November 2025, and the jury found that Yealink did not induce its customers to infringe after April 25, 2024, and did not willfully infringe. The jury awarded Barco a lump sum royalty of $907,360 for Yealink’s admitted infringement from May 17, 2023, to April 25, 2024.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A federal district court in Texas has granted a patent owner a permanent injunction, more than $4.5 million in pre-judgment interest, and its attorneys’ fees following a willful infringement verdict. The district court based the fee award on the defendant’s litigation conduct, including its repeated reliance on a prior art reference the district court had stricken.

In SnapRays, LLC dba SnapPower v. American Tack & Hardware Company, Inc., Chief Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas resolved the parties’ post-trial motions after a May 2026 trial in which a unanimous jury found that each of the asserted claims of SnapPower’s patents was valid and willfully infringed by American Tack, and awarded SnapPower $9,423,533.52 in damages. The patents cover powered cover plates that draw power through prongs or clips without being hardwired.

On the permanent injunction, the district court found SnapPower “can readily demonstrate the four eBay factors.” The trial record showed that American Tack and SnapPower are the two major players in the powered cover plate market, that SnapPower entered the market first with a popular novel product, and that American Tack’s “own executive suite repeatedly stated in emails—emails it was reticent to produce in discovery—that it was eager to copy the novel product but was aware that SnapPower’s products were likely covered by patent protections.” The entry of American Tack’s accused products coincided with a precipitous fall in SnapPower’s sales, and because SnapPower initially sold direct-to-consumer, American Tack “had cornered the market with infringing products” by the time SnapPower approached large retailers. The district court found reputational harm in the market could not be adequately redressed with legal remedies because “[i]t is difficult to quantify lost market share, brand recognition, and customer goodwill.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A federal district court in Idaho has denied McCain Foods’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, leaving intact a jury verdict that McCain’s “Twisted Potato” French fry willfully infringed J.R. Simplot Company’s design patent and that McCain’s own design patent is invalid and not infringed.

In J.R. Simplot Company v. McCain Foods USA, Inc., Judge David C. Nye rejected every ground McCain raised, in a decision that touches on proof of infringement through photographs, the standard for willfulness, and the consequences of failing to move for judgment as a matter of law during trial.

Simplot sued McCain in 2016, alleging that the Twisted Potato infringed Simplot’s U.S. Patent No. D640,036, a design patent titled “Spiral Potato Piece.” McCain filed its own suit alleging that Simplot’s “Sidewinder” fry infringed McCain’s design patent, U.S. Patent No. D720,916, titled “Root Vegetable Product.”  The jury found that the Twisted Potato infringed Simplot’s ‘036 Patent and that the infringement was willful, though it awarded Simplot zero dollars in damages. On McCain’s ‘916 Patent, the jury found no infringement by the Sidewinder and found the patent invalid.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A federal district court in California has denied a defendant’s motion for leave to amend its preliminary invalidity contentions to add two prior art references located by an AI-assisted patent search tool, finding that the defendant failed to show diligence in discovering the references before the contention deadline.

In Pacem IP Holdings, LLC v. Maxim Lighting International, Inc., the district court denied Maxim’s motion ruling that the availability of a new search tool does not excuse a party from explaining why it could not have found the art earlier through reasonable diligence.

Pacem sued Maxim in October 2025, asserting four patents directed to LED lamps. The Court’s Civil Trial Order set an April 13, 2026 deadline for preliminary invalidity contentions, which Maxim met by identifying five prior art references and serving nine claim charts.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On February 3, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) de-designated Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc. from precedential status. In both decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that a petitioner may amend its identification of real parties in interest (RPIs) while maintaining the petition’s original filing date after considering: (1) whether the petitioner has attempted to circumvent the time bar or estoppel rules; (2) petitioner bad faith; (3) prejudice to a patent owner from the delay; and (4) petitioner gamesmanship. Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019).

These decisions are de-designated and no longer binding on the PTAB because they conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential) (“Corning Optical“), which holds that a petitioner’s amended identification of RPIs requires according the petition a new filing date. Corning Optical, IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 at 23.

The Corning Optical Rule: No Second Chances on RPI Disclosure

The reinstated Corning Optical decision establishes a bright-line rule with severe consequences for petitioners who fail to properly identify all real parties in interest at the outset of inter partes review proceedings.

In Corning Optical, the PTAB granted Patent Owner PPC Broadband’s motion to dismiss three IPR proceedings and vacated its earlier institution decisions after determining that Petitioner Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC failed to identify two related Corning entities as RPIs: its parent company Corning Incorporated and its sister company Corning Optical Communications LLC (Corning NC). The Board’s analysis focused on two critical inquiries: funding and control.

The evidence revealed:

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a significant development for declaratory judgment actions involving jurisdictional challenges, a Northern District of California Magistrate Judge has ruled in favor of Samsung Electronics in its ongoing dispute with CM HK Ltd. The order from the court resolves key discovery issues, compelling document production from shared corporate resources and additional depositions to probe alter ego allegations. This ruling highlights the scrutiny courts apply to intertwined corporate structures in patent litigation, particularly when personal jurisdiction is at stake.

The case centers on Samsung’s bid for declaratory relief against CyWee Group Ltd.’s patent claims related to motion-sensing technology. After dismissing CyWee voluntarily and granting CM HK’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Judge Tigar allowed amendment and limited jurisdictional discovery focused on Samsung’s alter ego theory—that CM HK operates as CyWee’s extension in California, justifying jurisdiction via CyWee’s California contacts.

Under California law, alter ego requires unity of interest and ownership, plus a risk of injustice from treating entities separately. Relevant factors include commingling of assets, shared employees and offices, and disregard of corporate formalities. Judge Tigar noted colorable claims of asset manipulation between CM HK and CyWee, warranting discovery into their relationship.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a post-judgment ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the court rejected defendants’ bid to escape a destruction mandate after the asserted patents expired just days after a permanent injunction issued, ordering the destruction of all infringing “RadCad caddies” in defendants’ possession during the patent term. The decision affirms courts’ equitable powers to remedy past infringement even post-expiration of a patent, citing Federal Circuit precedents to distinguish between impermissible future-use bans and status quo restorations like product destruction.

Background

Following a finding of willful infringement, the court on August 29, 2025, entered a Permanent Injunction Order (“PI Order”) enjoining defendants from making, using, selling, or offering to sell infringing RadCad caddies—battery-powered medical transport devices—and requiring, at defendants’ expense, the destruction of all such products in their possession or control (the “Destruction Order”). The PI Order specified it would “remain in effect until the expiration of the asserted patents” and mandated notification of compliance within 30 days.

Plaintiff notified the court on September 12, 2025, that the patents expired on September 2, 2025—mere days after the PI Order. Defendants moved for confirmation that the expiration of the patent nullified all obligations, including destruction and reporting, arguing the court lacked post-expiration equitable authority. Plaintiff countered that the patents’ lapse didn’t moot remediation for past wrongs. The court, balancing the PI Order’s terms with enduring jurisdiction, sided with plaintiff.

Key Issues in the Decision

The court’s analysis hinged on the interplay between the PI Order’s explicit expiration tie and broader equitable remedies for infringement.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (No. 2:23-CV-00439-JRG-RSP, E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Samsung’s motion to exclude the apportionment opinions of plaintiff’s expert, Mr. W. Leo Hoarty. The ruling, by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, underscores the court’s gatekeeping role under Daubert while affirming that methodological critiques—such as alleged inclusion of prior art value or equal-weight assumptions—typically go to the weight of evidence, not admissibility. This decision in a multi-patent infringement suit over automatic content recognition (ACR) technology highlights the latitude afforded technical experts in royalty calculations, particularly when grounded in defendant-specific data.

Background

AMRH accuses Samsung of infringing four patents (Nos. 9,942,434; 10,244,180; 10,484,503; and 11,238,363) covering ACR systems for fingerprinting and matching media content to enable targeted ads and analytics in smart TVs. Hoarty, a technical expert, opined on apportionment, starting from Samsung’s “Matching and Analytics Servers” costs, counting infringing sub-features (e.g., fingerprint databases), and applying a weighted apportionment rate tied to Samsung’s internal allocations and his expertise.

Samsung sought exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, arguing Hoarty’s analysis failed to isolate the patents’ incremental value over prior art, used an unreliable feature-counting method, applied a one-size-fits-all rate across patents, and ignored total ACR costs. After briefing, the court denied the motion.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Court granted motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, invalidating two patents related to software for detecting cheating in the card game bridge. The ruling underscores the ongoing challenges for software patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly those involving data collection and analysis. The court applied the two-step Alice framework to find the patents directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept, highlighting the limits of patenting mathematical techniques even in niche applications.

Background

This case centers on patents for technology designed to detect cheating in bridge, a trick-taking card game with over 165,000 professional members in North America. Plaintiff, The EDGAR Association (“EDGAR”), owns and developed a competing system called EDGAR (Everyone Deserves a Game Above Reproach), which uses data analysis to generate reports on potential cheating. EDGAR filed suit seeking declaratory judgments that U.S. Patent Nos. 11,014,005 (the “‘005 Patent”) and 11,439,912 (the “‘912 Patent”)—owned by Defendants Nicolas Hammond and Hammond Software, Inc. (collectively, the “Hammond Defendants”)—are invalid and not infringed.

The ‘005 Patent, titled “Detecting Cheating and Changes in Playing Ability in Partial Knowledge and Trick-Taking Games,” issued on May 25, 2021, contains 20 claims, including three independent claims. The ‘912 Patent, a continuation of the ‘005 Patent, issued on September 13, 2022, shares a substantially identical specification. Both patents claim methods, systems, and computer equipment for detecting cheating by: (1) acquiring board data from bridge games (e.g., hand records, table results, contracts, and declarers); (2) determining performance values for players; (3) detecting deviations by comparing values against thresholds based on past cheating or optimal behavior; and (4) alerting administrators via electronic message.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a significant policy shift on July 31, 2025, announcing it will strictly enforce a procedural rule that has been loosely applied for years, potentially making it harder for challengers to invalidate patents through inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Key Policy Change

The USPTO will now strictly enforce 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), which requires IPR petitions to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” This marks a dramatic departure from the agency’s previous practice of waiving this requirement.  As Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart explained in the memorandum, “enforcement of Rule 104(b)(4) means that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other evidence that is not ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications’ (collectively, ‘general knowledge’) may not be used to supply a missing claim limitation.”

What This Means in Practice

Under the new enforcement approach, IPR petitioners can no longer rely on general knowledge, expert testimony, or common sense to fill gaps in their prior art references when challenging patent claims. Instead, they must point to specific patents or published documents that disclose each element of the challenged claims.  However, the USPTO clarified that general knowledge can still play a supporting role. “General knowledge may still be used in an IPR to support a motivation to combine or to demonstrate the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art,” the memorandum states.

Continue reading

Contact Information

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out IconYour Privacy Choices Cookie Policy Manage Cookies

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2026, Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design