Opinions of Counsel Should Be Rendered Timely, and Evidence of Opinions of Counsel Should Be Credible

Apr 17, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

The court first concluded that Omega is entitled to enhanced damages under the Supreme Court’s Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc. decision and reasonable attorney’s fees under the Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. decision. Importantly, the court stated that culpability for enhanced damages should be measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.

In this case, CalAmp was fully aware of the asserted patents through licensing negotiations with Omega long before introducing the accused products. CalAmp presented various noninfringement arguments, but none was deemed credible. First, CalAmp’s corporate representative and CalAmp’s technical expert both argued that the accused devices did not infringe because they read vehicle speed data from a GPS module instead of a data bus, as required by the asserted claims. Second, those same witnesses argued that, to the extent that the accused products read speed data from the data bus, it was the end users who programmed the accused devices to perform that way – not CalAmp.

Both arguments were discredited by contradictory testimony and sworn interrogatory responses, which admitted that the accused products read speed data from the data bus and that it was, in fact, CalAmp that programmed them to operate that way. The court held that the contradictory evidence provided substantial support for the jury’s finding of willfulness.

The court next analyzed CalAmp’s evidence regarding opinions of counsel. CalAmp’s representative testified that, in 2010, before launching the accused devices, CalAmp received verbal opinions of counsel that the accused products did not infringe then-existing patents. This testimony about oral assurances, however, was called into question by an email from three years later in which that same individual expressed concern about infringing certain claims (later asserted in this litigation) that “relate to how [CalAmp] program[s] a unit at the factory.” In addition to citing the CalAmp representative’s prior discredited testimony, the court reasoned that CalAmp’s representative should have had no reason to worry or to suggest a noninfringement theory in 2013 had counsel in fact vetted the accused devices in 2010.

The court next concluded that CalAmp did not have a “close case” or a good-faith belief that the patents were not infringed or invalid. Regarding noninfringement, the court concluded that the defense theory emerged late in the litigation and therefore failed to mitigate CalAmp’s culpability at the time of infringement. Further, regarding CalAmp’s invalidity defense, the court found that the expert failed to articulate any motivation to combine the prior art references. Because there is no evidence that the expert provided CalAmp with invalidity opinions before launch, the court found that, under Halo, the after-the-fact invalidity opinion was of little merit in assessing enhanced damages. Additionally, although the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued Office Actions rejecting some of the asserted claims in ex parte reexamination proceedings, the court held that the USPTO’s decision does not have any preclusive effect as to the jury verdict, unless the Federal Circuit affirms the USPTO before the jury’s verdict becomes final.

The court awarded enhanced damages of threefold the actual damages and also awarded reasonable attorney’s fees based on an analysis of the applicable Read factors, including evidence of deliberate copying, whether CalAmp had a good-faith basis for believing that it did not infringe or that the patents were invalid, the closeness of the case, the relative size and financial condition of CalAmp, and the duration of the infringement.

Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp., Case No. 6:13-cv-1050-ORL-40DCI (M.D. Fla. April 5, 2017)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

September 16, 2024

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed an ITC holding that the AIA’s § 102 on-sale bar applies to the sale of a product made according to a secret process when that sale occurs more than one year before the patent’s effective filing date. In so doing, the court confirmed that, despite changes to the text of § 102, the AIA did not undo long-settled pre-AIA precedent that the on-sale bar applies when, before the critical date, a party sells products secretly made using a patented process.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 5, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board exercised its discretion under General Plastic to deny institution of a follow-on petitioner’s request for inter partes review despite determining that the petitioner did not have a “significant relationship” with a previous petitioner that had challenged the same patent. The PTO Director vacated the board’s decision, holding that “where . . . the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship . . . General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other . . . factors.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 28, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review for a design patent in part because the petitioner failed to show that three asserted references qualified as prior art. Specifically, the PTAB ruled that images of a boot design taken from a website after the critical date, coupled with evidence that the design was on sale before the critical date, was insufficient to establish the design as prior art. Critical to the PTAB’s determination was the fact that webpages are “dynamic” and change over time, rendering images taken from the current webpage insufficient to establish prior disclosure.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 21, 2024

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had filed a second amended complaint, but then voluntarily dismissed the case without asking the district court to vacate its prior invalidity ruling, which it also never appealed. The Federal Circuit held that the initial invalidity order was interlocutory when issued but merged with the voluntary dismissal with prejudice, making the invalidity determination final and the present appeal moot.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 21, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition because a prior art patent figure did not provide exact dimensions, and therefore could not meet the relevant claim limitation.  On review from the denied institution, the Director explained that a drawing may be relied upon for what it clearly shows, vacating and remanding for a determination of whether the reference is clear on its face or reasonably would have suggested the limitation in view of the supporting expert testimony.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 13, 2024

In a case it described as “‘a prime example’ of when ODP does not apply,” the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the District of Delaware that invalidated a claim for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), holding that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated for ODP based on a later-filed, later-issued, but earlier-expiring claim from the same family. In so doing, the court answered the question of whether a later-filed, later-issued patent in the same family can be an ODP reference against the first application in the family—it cannot. The court also clarified the scope of its prior ruling in In re Cellect, explaining that case answered a different question—the question of what expiration date should be used for an ODP analysis.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted a petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information, over patent owner’s objections, concerning the public availability of references that were relied upon to support grounds of unpatentability in the petition.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.