Federal Circuit Quashes $287 Million Enhanced Damages Award Finding Objectively Reasonable Defenses Raised During Litigation

Aug 11, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

In Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvel Tech. Grp., Ltd., a jury awarded over a billion dollars in damages after finding Marvel had infringed Carnegie Mellon’s patents. The district court added 23 percent in enhanced damages after finding willful infringement on the grounds that Marvel’s trial defenses were not objectively reasonable and that Marvel knew of should have known its actions would infringe the patents. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held Marvel had presented defenses during the litigation that were objectively reasonable.

First, the court rejected the district court’s premise that a reasonable defense had to be known to Marvel during the time prior to the litigation. Quoting In re Seagate, the court reiterated that “‘[t]he state of mind of the accused infringer is not relevant to th[e] objective inquiry’ into the risk of liability to the defendant necessary for a finding of recklessness.” Citing further precedent, the court held there is no temporal aspect to the objective reasonableness of a defense, i.e. Marvel need not have “had the defense in mind before the litigation.”

Second, the court rejected the district court’s distinction between those defenses presented at trial and those raised an earlier stage, such as during summary judgment proceedings. The court held objectively reasonable defenses can include “claim­construction arguments [and] other defense that [do] not make the cut for consuming precious time and attention of the jury. Indeed, the court noted the record of defenses as a whole must be examined, and that the “record is not limited to evidence presented to the jury.” Thus, Marvel did not have to present a defense to the jury for that defense to be found objectively reasonable.

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvel Tech. Grp., Ltd., No. 2014­1492 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) [Taranto (opinion), Wallach, Chen].

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.