District Courts Category Archives — Patent Lawyer Blog Published By Patent Lawyer

Published on: September 14, 2026

After $9.4 Million Willfulness Verdict, District Court Grants Permanent Injunction and Attorneys’ Fees Based on Defendant’s Litigation Conduct

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.”

Published on: September 8, 2026

In French Fry Design Patent Battle, District Court Denies Post-Trial Motions And Reinforces the Significance of Rule 50 Motions

by Stan Gibson

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.

Published on: August 31, 2026

District Court Denies Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions Based on Prior Art Found by AI Search Tool

by Stan Gibson

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.

Published on: December 15, 2025

Samsung Advances in Alter Ego Discovery for Jurisdiction: Court Orders Production and Depositions in CM HK Dispute Where Affiliates Used Common Servers

by Stan Gibson

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.

Published on: December 2, 2025

District Court Enforces Post-Expiration Destruction Order Despite Patent Lapse

by Stan Gibson

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.

Published on: October 27, 2025

Eastern District of Texas Rejects Daubert Challenge to Apportionment Expert in Anonymous Media v. Samsung

by Stan Gibson

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.

Published on: September 22, 2025

District Court Invalidates Patents for Bridge Cheating Detection Software Under § 101

by Stan Gibson

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.

Published on: May 9, 2025

Court Orders Production of Litigation Funding Agreements in Patent Case: Implications for Witness Bias

by Stan Gibson

Recent Decision Highlights Discoverability of Funding Arrangements

In a recent discovery dispute in the Northern District of California, Judge Sallie Kim has ordered the plaintiff to produce litigation funding agreements, finding them relevant to potential witness bias. The April 29, 2025 order in Correct Transmission, LLC v. Juniper Networks Inc (Case No. 21-cv-09284-RFL) provides important guidance on when litigation funding arrangements may be discoverable despite work product protection claims.

Case Background

The case involves patent infringement claims brought by Correct Transmission against Juniper Networks. The patents-in-suit have an interesting ownership history, having changed hands multiple times before the current litigation:

Originally owned by Orckit Communications (co-founded by CEO Izhak Tamir)
After liquidation, purchased by Orckit IP in 2015 (funded by Tamir)
Later assigned to Correct Transmission for enforcement and licensing
Correct Transmission then entered into litigation funding agreements to monetize the patents

The dispute centered on whether these litigation funding agreements should be produced to the defendant.

Published on: April 29, 2025

Court Orders Patent Reassignment as Trade Secret Misappropriation Remedy in Insulet Case

by Stan Gibson

A federal court in Massachusetts has granted in part a motion for permanent injunction against defendants found liable for misappropriating trade secrets related to an insulin patch pump, imposing several significant remedies including the reassignment of patent applications that incorporate the intellectual property.

The case centered on Insulet Corporation’s Omnipod insulin delivery system, where after a month-long trial, a jury found six defendants liable for misappropriating trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). The jury awarded Insulet $452 million, consisting of $170 million in unjust-enrichment damages and $282 million in exemplary damages. However, the court ultimately reduced the total damages award to $59.4 million to avoid potential double recovery issues with the injunctive relief.

The court’s April 24, 2025 ruling in Insulet Corporation v. EOFlow Co., Ltd. et al. follows a jury verdict that found the defendants liable for misappropriating four trade secrets belonging to Insulet Corporation, including an occlusion-detection-algorithm (ODA). When addressing Insulet’s request for reassignment of patent applications incorporating aspects of the misappropriated trade secrets, the court explained:

Published on: March 27, 2025

Court Denies Abbott’s Summary Judgment Motion in Patent Infringement Case: A Lesson in Joinder Rules

by Stan Gibson

In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied Abbott Laboratories’ motion for summary judgment in a patent infringement case involving multiple pharmaceutical companies. This ruling offers valuable insights into the application of Rule 19 joinder requirements in patent litigation.

The Case: Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC

The dispute centers on a patent infringement claim brought by Glycosyn LLC against Abbott Laboratories, with Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH also involved as a plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant. Abbott argued that Glycosyn could not maintain its patent infringement suit without joining another company, Friesland Campina DOMO B.V. (“RFC”), which allegedly had an exclusive licensing agreement with Glycosyn for the patents at issue.