Federal Circuit Affirms Willful Infringement Judgment and Enhanced Damages Award

Oct 16, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

SSL appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for a new trial on infringement of the ’796 patent and its decision that SSL was not the prevailing party. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on the non­infringement finding, concluding that the court correctly construed one of the key claim terms and that, under this construction, all relevant evidence supported the jury’s non­infringement verdict. But the panel vacated the court’s decision to deny “prevailing party” status to SSL. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that Citrix had achieved some success against SSL, but held that SSL was the prevailing party nonetheless. In particular, the panel noted that “SSL has a judgment for damages against Citrix” and that such a judgment is the type of relief on the merits that entitles a party to prevailing party status. The Federal Circuit observed, however, that SSL’s prevailing party status “d[id] not automatically entitle it to any particular level of fees,” and remanded to allow the district court to assess the appropriate fees.

Citrix cross­appealed, seeking judgments as a matter of law of non­infringement and invalidity of the ’011 patent and a new trial on willfulness, among other relief. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that substantial evidence supported both the verdict of infringement and the jury’s finding that asserted prior art did not disclose a necessary claim element. In affirming the district court’s denial of Citrix’s JMOL motion, the Federal Circuit relied on the testimony of SSL’s expert witness and its own analysis of the asserted prior art.

The Federal Circuit next considered the finding of willful infringement. Applying the Federal Circuit’s holding in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed Cir. 2012), the district court had addressed the threshold question of whether Citrix’s conduct was objectively willful before it submitted the question of subjective willfulness to the jury. The Federal Circuit agreed with Judge Gilstrap’s finding that SSL satisfied the objective prong. In reaching this conclusion, the panel gave weight to the jury’s rejection of Citrix’s invalidity and non­infringement arguments and the USPTO’s ultimate rejection of SSL’s invalidity arguments in an ex parte reexamination.

The Federal Circuit also held that the jury’s finding of subjective willfulness was supported by substantial evidence and that Citrix was not entitled to a new trial on the issue. Citrix argued that the district court erroneously prevented it from presenting fact testimony from its chief engineer that Citrix had a good faith belief that its products did not infringe and that Citrix initiated reexamination proceedings in the USPTO. The panel found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The panel observed that Citrix’s engineer was a lay witness and that his personal beliefs regarding non­infringement, without the benefit of claim constructions, had little probative value and were potentially prejudicial. With respect to the reexamination proceedings, the panel cited precedent that “warned of the limited value of actions by the PTO,” and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the risk of prejudice outweighed any probative value of “unfinished agency proceedings.”

SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., 2013­1419­1420 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2014).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

© 2025 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.