Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
December 13, 2016, Decided; December 13, 2016, Filed
C.A. No. 13-723-LPS
[**1787] MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 13th day of December, 2016:
Pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Greatbatch Ltd.'s ("Greatbatch") Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement (D.I. 751) ("Motion to Vacate") and (2) various disputes in the parties' status report of July 29, 2016 (D.I. 778) ("Status Report").
I. GREATBATCH'S MOTION TO VACATE (D.I. 751)
Having reviewed the parties' briefing (D.I. 752, 766, 768) and related filings addressing Greatbatch's Motion to Vacate, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Greatbatch's Motion to Vacate (D.I. 751) is DENIED, for the reasons discussed below.
Greatbatch filed this suit against Defendants AVX Corporation and AVX Filters Corporation ("AVX") on April 25, 2013. (D.I. 1) A jury trial was held between January 11 and 26, 2016 on certain of Greatbatch's asserted patents and AVX's invalidity claims.1 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in Greatbatch's favor on all issues before it and awarded $37.5 million. (D.I. 625)
Prior to trial, AVX had moved for summary judgment of no willful infringement on August 24, 2015. (D.I. 398) ("AVX's Motion") On December 8, 2015, the Court granted AVX's Motion as to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,905,627 ("'627 patent"); 5,333,095 ("'095 patent") [*3] ; and 6,765,779 ("'779 patent"). (D.I. 546 at 24-26) ("Willfulness Order") The Court's Willfulness Order relied on the Federal Circuit's test for willful infringement articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Specifically, the Court based its decision on Seagate's "objective" prong, which required that, in order to prove willful infringement, a patentee "show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent." Id.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court abrogated the objective prong of the Seagate test in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1931-34, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016) ("The principal problem with Seagate's two-part test is that it requires a finding of objective recklessness in every case before district courts may award enhanced damages."). In light of Halo, Greatbatch moved to vacate the Court's Willfulness Order. (D.I. 768 at 6) ("[T]he basis for Greatbatch's motion is the change in the legal standard.") While Halo makes it necessary to reconsider the Willfulness Order, it does not, in this case, require vacating the prior determination that Greatbatch is unable to prove willfulness.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171939 *; 121 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1786 **; 2016 WL 7217625
GREATBATCH LTD., Plaintiff, v. AVX CORPORATION and AVX FILTERS CORPORATION, Defendants.
Prior History: Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13473 (D. Del., Feb. 4, 2014)
infringement, willful, enhanced damage, patent, summary judgment, invalidity, Vacate, products, genuine, egregious, damages, reasonable jury, district court, defenses, non-infringement, nonmoving
Patent Law, Remedies, Damages, Increased Damages, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Legal Entitlement, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Scintilla Rule