In this Insights, we summarize two recent decisions: one relating to infringement of patents related to Voice-over-IP (VoIP) technology and another regarding a product used to treat hemophilia A.
Sprint Communications Company LP v. WideOpenWest, Inc. et al., Case No. 1-18-cv-00361 (US District Court of Delaware)
Sprint Communications filed lawsuits against five defendants (Charter Communications, Inc., et al.; Mediacom Communications Corp.; WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.; Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC, et al.; and Grande Communications Networks, LLC, et al.) alleging that their Voice-over-IP (VoIP) systems infringe nine US patents related to VoIP technology.
On March 16, 2021, in response to defendants’ Daubert motions to exclude the expert testimony offered by Sprint’s damages expert, US District Judge Richard G. Andrews in the US District Court for the District of Delaware issued an order:
- granting defendants’ motion to exclude the expert’s Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty calculation to the extent it relies on jury verdicts and settlement agreements;
- denying defendants’ motion to exclude the expert’s lost profits analysis under Panduit Factor 3;
- denying defendants’ motion to exclude the expert’s “analytical approach” analysis for determining a reasonable royalty;
- denying defendants’ motion to exclude the expert’s royalty rate analysis specific to one of the patents-in-suit; and
- denying defendants’ motion to exclude all of the expert’s damages opinions for failure to apportion.
Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., Baxalta US Inc., and Nektar Therapeutics, Case: 19-2418 (Federal Circuit 2021)
On March 1, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the US District Court for the District of Delaware’s denial of defendants Baxalta Inc. and Baxalta US Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The CAFC disagreed with Baxalta’s assertion that Bayer’s damages expert should not have been allowed to testify that any rate within a royalty rate range of 5.1% to 42.4% would be a reasonable outcome of the hypothetical negotiation and that Bayer should not have been allowed to ask the jury to pick a rate within that range.
In the district court case (No. 1:16-cv-01122-RGA), Bayer accused Baxalta and Nektar Therapeutics of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,364,520 via Baxalta’s Adynovate® product used to treat hemophilia A. A jury found the patent valid and infringed, and awarded Bayer $155,190,264 in damages based on a royalty rate of 17.78%.