Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

December 4, 2014, Decided

2013-1625, -1631, -1632, -1633

Opinion

 [*1207]  [***1005]   O'Malley, Circuit Judge.

Ericsson, Inc. & Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, [**4]  "Ericsson") brought suit against D-Link Systems, Inc.; Netgear, Inc.; Acer, Inc.; Acer America Corp.; Gateway, Inc.; Dell, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; and Toshiba Corp., with Intel Corp. intervening (collectively, "D-Link"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of, inter alia, certain claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 6,424,625 ("the '625 patent"); 6,466,568 ("the '568 patent"); and 6,772,215 ("the '215 patent"). All of the patents at issue generally relate to Wi-Fi technology employed by electronic devices to wirelessly access the Internet. Ericsson alleged that all of the patents at issue were essential to the Wi-Fi standard, which would mean that all Wi-Fi-capable devices infringe Ericsson's patents.

The case progressed to a jury trial, where the jury found that D-Link infringed the asserted claims of the three patents and assigned roughly $10 million in damages—approximately 15 cents per infringing  [*1208]  device. After post-trial motions, the district court upheld the jury's infringement and validity findings and refused to grant a new trial based on an alleged violation of the "entire market value rule" ("EMVR") and allegedly deficient jury instructions regarding the standard-setting context and Ericsson's "reasonable [**5]  and non-discriminatory" licensing obligations derived from that context. For the reasons explained below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.

I. Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

773 F.3d 1201 *; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22778 **; 113 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1001 ***

ERICSSON, INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, AND WI-FI ONE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., NETGEAR, INC., ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, AND GATEWAY, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND DELL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants, AND INTEL CORPORATION, Intervenor-Appellant, AND BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 10-CV-0473, Judge Leonard Davis.

Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32729 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 8, 2013)Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110585 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 6, 2013)

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

infringement, patent, packets, message, royalty, district court, feedback, licenses, receiver, technology, products, invention, damages, minimizing, responses, payload, factors, substantial evidence, transmitter, identifier, stacking, argues, hold-up, instruct a jury, specification, prior art, designation, instructions, expert testimony, capability

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, General Overview, Substantial Evidence, Sufficiency of Evidence, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Claim Interpretation, Burdens of Proof, Scope of Claim, Claims, Claim Parts, Preambles, Infringing Acts, Subject Matter, Business & Corporate Compliance, Offers to Sell & Sales, Jury Trials, Verdicts, General Verdicts, Province of Court & Jury, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Clear & Convincing Proof, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Presumption of Validity, Anticipation & Novelty, Abuse of Discretion, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials, Testimony, Jury Instructions, Damages, Patentholder Losses, Reasonable Royalties, Utility Patents, Ownership, Conveyances, Licenses, Weight & Sufficiency, Expert Witnesses, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Remedies, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Business & Corporate Law, Agency Relationships, Authority to Act, Establishment, Elements