Federal Judiciary

Postverdict relief denied in patent portion of Avid v. Philips; judgment entered

By Michael Smith

Judge Ward continues to clear out postverdict issues in recent patent trials with the entry of rulings in the Avid v. Philips et al, 2:04cv183 case tried recently.  As readers may recall, the verdict was only $26,981 for patent infringement, but $6 million for the unfair competiton.  But Judge Ward later held one of the three patents asserted unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (see post here). This background is important, because it affects - significantly - the Court's rulings yesterday.
Lanham Act - First of all, Judge Ward denied Avid's request for enhanced damages under the Lanham Act and denied Avid's request to declare this case exceptional and to award attorneys fees under the Lanham Act.  The court granted in part Avid's request for pre- and post-judgment interest, and taxed costs of $224,123.04 against the defendants for Lanham Act-related costs (Avid had - improperly - sought expert fees as well, and those were cut out).  A narrowly drawn injunction under the Lanham Act was granted.
Patent infringement - Avid's request for enhanced damages and costs and attorneys fees under the patent statutes was rejected in large part because of Avid's inequitable conduct in procuring one of the patents.  Avid's request for a permanent injunction under the patent statutes for any of the three patents in suit was denied because of the inequitable conduct with regard to the one, but the court severed any claims for patent royalties accruing after the verdict into case number2:08-CV-131.  The judgment for the patent claims was therefore $26,981, plus interest, but no costs, fees, enhancement, or injunction.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on March 26, 2008 (boomark / email).