Intellectual Property Law

Judge Stark: Motion to Enhance Damages GRANTED and Motion for Attorneys' Fees DENIED

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int?l, Inc., C.A. 04-1371-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2011), after a long and contentious litigation involving several patents, Judge Stark recently decided plaintiff?s motion to enhance damages and motion for attorneys? fees. Judge Stark noted that the factors favoring enhancement include ?Fairchild?s deliberate copying, the extent to which Fairchild investigated the scope of the patent, Fairchild?s financial condition, Fairchild?s motivation for harm, and the non-closeness of the case.? Id. at 22. No factor weighed against enhancing damages and factors such as Fairchild?s litigation conduct, lack of attempts to conceal, duration of misconduct and Fairchild?s remedial measures had a neutral effect on the issue of enhancement. Id. Ultimately, Judge Stark doubled the $6 million damages award. Id. Regarding attorneys? fees, Judge Stark disagreed with plaintiff that this case was one of those ?limited? cases justifying a shifting of attorneys? fees. Id. at 23. Judge Stark noted that ?the Court focuses in particular on the actual conduct of the parties during the course of litigating or prosecuting the patent.? Id. Judge Stark determined that Fairchild?s actions did not amount to ?bad faith conduct or frivolous pursuit of claims.? Id. at 24.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int?l, Inc., C.A. 04-1371-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2011)

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on January 24, 2011 (boomark / email).