Patent Lawyer Blog
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.”
The district court also observed that American Tack’s decision to stop selling the accused products after the verdict undercut its own hardship argument, noting its “post-trial behavior seems to belie any notion that a permanent injunction would be a hardship.” Quoting the Federal Circuit’s i4i decision, the district court added that an infringer “is not entitled to continue infringing simply because it successfully exploited its infringement.”
On pre-judgment interest, American Tack’s sole argument was that SnapPower “delayed” by bringing suit within the limitations period. The district court called this “a gross mischaracterization of SnapPower’s conduct,” finding instead that “this litigation seems to be the fruit of American Tack’s dogged refusal to negotiate with SnapPower throughout continued business dealings between the two companies.” The district court noted American Tack “delayed pulling its Accused Products from the market for more than five years after receiving notice of SnapPower’s patent rights.” Pre-judgment interest was set at 5%, compounded monthly, from October 23, 2018, to May 19, 2026, totaling $4,334,034.17.
The district court split SnapPower’s motion for enhanced damages and fees. Despite the willfulness finding, and although SnapPower argued American Tack’s behavior rose to the level of piracy under the Read factors, the district court declined to enhance damages under § 284, noting the Supreme Court’s guidance in Halo that enhanced damages are “generally reserved for egregious cases of culpable behavior” and that enhancement need not follow even a finding of egregious misconduct.
The district court did find the case exceptional under § 285 based on how American Tack litigated. The district court wrote that American Tack’s counsel “has seemed to engage in an almost cavalier disregard for standards of procedural law.” The primary example was American Tack’s continued reference to the Keystone clip, a prior art reference the district court had stricken because American Tack first raised it after the deadline for final invalidity contentions had closed. The district court explained that deadlines in a patent case “exist to prevent a ‘shifting sands’ approach to the litigation,” and it could not help but see the continued reference to the stricken art “as a blatant disregard of a direct court order.” American Tack also reiterated overruled objections and asked the district court to revisit its summary judgment rulings in a procedurally improper manner. The district court concluded that “[t]he lack of respect for this Court’s rulings in American Tack’s litigation conduct is sufficient to render this case exceptional,” awarding SnapPower its reasonable attorneys’ fees and non-taxable litigation expenses.
The decision shows that willfulness and enhancement are separate questions, and that a court can find willful infringement proven yet still decline to enhance damages. It also shows the flip side. Litigation conduct alone, including ignoring a court’s order striking untimely prior art, can make a case exceptional and shift fees even where the court will not enhance the award.
SnapRays, LLC dba SnapPower v. American Tack & Hardware Company, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-1228-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2026)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at SGibson@Jeffer.com.