Federal Circuit Upholds a Jury Instruction on Willfulness Despite Erroneous Portions That May Have Improperly Steered the Jury Away from a Willfulness Finding

Feb 27, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

In the underlying district court litigation, the jury found that Defendant Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (ARM) infringed Eko’s U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855 (the “’855 patent”). The jury did not, however, find ARM’s infringement willful, thereby foreclosing Eko from obtaining an award of enhanced damages. Eko appealed the jury’s finding of no willfulness, along with the district court’s denial of enhanced damages based on the jury verdict.

On appeal, Eko argued that the district court’s willfulness instruction—which tracked the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s National Patent Jury Instruction No. 4.1—misstated the applicable standard, effectively inflating Eko’s burden of proof. Specifically, Eko attacked two particular phrases contained in the instruction, which are shown in bold in the excerpted portion below:

. . . Willfulness requires you to determine whether Eko proved that it is more likely than not that the infringement was especially worthy of punishment. You may not determine that the infringement was willful just because ARM knew of the Eko 855 patent and infringed it. Instead, willful infringement is reserved for egregious behavior, such as where the infringement is malicious, deliberate, consciously wrongful, or done in bad faith. . . .

Eko asserted that these phrases improperly invited the jury not only to determine “the underlying factual question of whether the infringement was willful,” but also “to make the legal decision as to whether damages should be enhanced, or whether it is an exceptional case.”

Agreeing with Eko on this point, the Federal Circuit observed that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1934 (2016), “the concept of ‘willfulness’ requires a jury to find no more than deliberate or intentional infringement.” The Federal Circuit thus explained that “considerations of egregious behavior and punishment” bear only on the trial judge’s assessment of whether to award enhanced damages (i.e., “once an affirmative finding of willfulness has been made”) and “are therefore not appropriate for jury consideration.”

Yet, despite agreeing that the phrases “reserved for egregious behavior” and “especially worthy of punishment” were erroneous “in isolation,” the Federal Circuit upheld the instruction and denied Eko’s appeal. The Federal Circuit explained that a party challenging jury instructions must prove that the instructions, when “read in their entirety,” are “incorrect or incomplete.” In turn, the court held that notwithstanding the two challenged phrases, the instruction “taken as a whole provide[d] reasonable clarity as to the correct test for willful infringement.”

The Federal Circuit offered two reasons to support its holding. First, it highlighted other language in the instruction which, in its view, made clear “that willful infringement can simply be ‘deliberate’ infringement.” In other words, the Federal Circuit believed the jury was properly “apprised that ‘deliberate’ behavior,” by itself, can support a finding of willful infringement. Second, the Federal Circuit observed that the instruction included a list of factors for the jury to consider, specifically including “[w]hether or not ARM intentionally copied a product of Eko that is covered by the [] ’855 patent,” and “[w]hether or not ARM reasonably believed it did not infringe or that the patent was invalid.” This “portion of the instruction,” the Federal Circuit explained, “reasonably informed” the jury that intentional conduct likewise could support a finding of willfulness, without any heightened showing of “egregiousness.”

The Federal Circuit ended its opinion with a cautionary note. The court observed that sustaining Eko’s “limited” objection—which exclusively targeted the phrases “reserved for egregious behavior” and “especially worthy of punishment”—“would not have cured the problem that Eko identified,” since the instruction still would have contained the terms “malicious,” “consciously disregard” and “bad faith.” And because the court found the instruction as a whole not legally erroneous, it declined to address whether the instruction harmed Eko. However, the court noted “that a legally erroneous jury instruction can only be harmless error if it could not have changed the result.” This raises the possibility that, had Eko raised a broader objection to the instruction, the court might have, at a minimum, reached the question of harmless error.

Practice Pointer: The Eko Brands decision demonstrates how important it is for litigants to carefully examine jury instructions, regardless of the source, and, and make all warranted objections. This is particularly true with respect to instructions on areas of the law—such as willfulness—that have undergone substantive changes or are still evolving. Failing to take such precautions leaves open the possibility of the trial judge giving a potentially erroneous instruction that, despite tipping the jury’s deliberations in an adversary’s favor, may be upheld on appeal.

Citation: Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., No. 2018-2215, 2018-2254 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2019) (Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes; opinion by Dyk)

Share This Insight

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.