Federal Judiciary

Postverdict rulings in Grantley v. Clear Channel - 25% enhancement but no fees - judgment entered

By Michael Smith

The Lufkin jury in Judge Clark's court in Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., (NO. CIV.A. 9:06CV259) returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor last month in the amount of $66,029,750.  Yes on infringement, yes on willful, and no on the anticipation and obviousness defenses.  Judge Clark held a hearing June 4 on the parties' post-trial motions, and on June 10 entered an order resolving them and a final judgment.
The defendant's renewed motion for JMOL on damages was denied, as were its motions for reconsideration of the denials of its motion for JMOL on non-infringement, willful infringement and invalidity.  The Plaintiff's motion for ongoing royalty was granted, and injunctive relief was denied.  The parties agreed to a reasonable royalty from date of verdict to the date of the design-around's implementation a month later of $978,000.  Plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment including enhanced damages, interest, attorney fees, expenses and costs was granted in part. 
The order contained a few interesting items.
First, on the willfulness finding, Judge Clark noted that although the defendant objected that there was not evidence of willfulness with respect to some of the patents, it didn't object to the court submitting one question on willfulness, as opposed to patent by patent.  However, the court factored the evidence on a patent by patent basis into its analysis of enhanced damages - that was one reason why the enhancement was limited.
Second, on the money, Judge Clark award enhanced damages of 25% of the jury's verdict, or about $16 million, plus the stipulated amount of prejudgment interest ($6.2 million) and postjudgment interest at the prevailing rate of 2.14% for a final judgment of approximately $89 million.
Third, Judge Clark found that the case was not exceptional and denied attorneys fees, but did award costs to the plaintiff.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on June 19, 2008 (boomark / email).