SRI v. Cisco. A win for SRI
The outcome
SRI International, Inc. appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s denial of its motion to reinstate the jury’s willfulness verdict and to reinstate the district court’s award of enhanced damages. Cisco Systems, Inc. cross-appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees and expenses. Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of willful infringement, we reverse the district court’s denial of SRI’s motion to reinstate the willfulness verdict. Having restored the jury’s willfulness finding, we also restore the district court’s award of enhanced damages. Finally, we affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees.
(...)
In SRI II, we held that there was no willful infringement as a matter of law before Cisco had notice on May 8, 2012. We did not decide whether substantial evidence supported the jury verdict of willful infringement after May 8, 2012. Rather, we remanded for the district court to determine this issue in the first instance. We now hold that that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of willful infringement after May 8, 2012. We do not disturb SRI II’s holding that there was no willful infringement before May 8, 2012.
Of note
SRI presented evidence that Cisco’s invalidity defenses were unreasonable. Cisco’s only assertion of invalidity over the prior art was based on anticipation by a reference that was twice considered and twice rejected by the Patent Office. See SRI I, 254 F. Supp. 3d at 722 n.52. SRI’s expert testified that this reference was lacking a key limitation of the claims—the requirement for multiple network monitors. Moreover, Cisco’s expert had not even seen (let alone distinguished) the Patent Office’s prior analysis rejecting this same prior art during the reexamination of the asserted patents before that expert opined that this prior art anticipated the claims. SRI also presented evidence to the jury that Cisco did not have any reasonable basis for non-infringement. For example, as its only non-infringement argument for one of two sets of product groupings, Cisco maintained throughout trial that the claims required separate monitors, which its products did not have. Id. at 722. SRI countered that this non-infringement defense was untethered to the district court’s claim construction of a “network monitor,” which expressed no such requirement. See J.A. 22228 (Trial Tr. 1934:13–21) (stating that “during the entire time
SRI International, Inc. appeals the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s denial of its motion to reinstate the jury’s willfulness verdict and to reinstate the district court’s award of enhanced damages. Cisco Systems, Inc. cross-appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees and expenses. Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of willful infringement, we reverse the district court’s denial of SRI’s motion to reinstate the willfulness verdict. Having restored the jury’s willfulness finding, we also restore the district court’s award of enhanced damages. Finally, we affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees.
(...)
In SRI II, we held that there was no willful infringement as a matter of law before Cisco had notice on May 8, 2012. We did not decide whether substantial evidence supported the jury verdict of willful infringement after May 8, 2012. Rather, we remanded for the district court to determine this issue in the first instance. We now hold that that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of willful infringement after May 8, 2012. We do not disturb SRI II’s holding that there was no willful infringement before May 8, 2012.
Of note
SRI presented evidence that Cisco’s invalidity defenses were unreasonable. Cisco’s only assertion of invalidity over the prior art was based on anticipation by a reference that was twice considered and twice rejected by the Patent Office. See SRI I, 254 F. Supp. 3d at 722 n.52. SRI’s expert testified that this reference was lacking a key limitation of the claims—the requirement for multiple network monitors. Moreover, Cisco’s expert had not even seen (let alone distinguished) the Patent Office’s prior analysis rejecting this same prior art during the reexamination of the asserted patents before that expert opined that this prior art anticipated the claims. SRI also presented evidence to the jury that Cisco did not have any reasonable basis for non-infringement. For example, as its only non-infringement argument for one of two sets of product groupings, Cisco maintained throughout trial that the claims required separate monitors, which its products did not have. Id. at 722. SRI countered that this non-infringement defense was untethered to the district court’s claim construction of a “network monitor,” which expressed no such requirement. See J.A. 22228 (Trial Tr. 1934:13–21) (stating that “during the entire time
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home