Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,301 times 225 Legal AnalysesHolding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) Cited 494 times 59 Legal AnalysesHolding that section 284 " ‘commits the determination’ whether enhanced damages are appropriate ‘to the discretion of the district court’ "
Westerngeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) Cited 103 times 15 Legal AnalysesRejecting the defendant's extraterritoriality argument because the case involved a "permissible domestic application" of the patent damages statute
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.
876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 176 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that an alleged infringer bears an initial burden of production to identify unmarked patented products
Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P.
867 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2017) Cited 85 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding that the jury's willfulness verdict was supported by "evidence of the parties' prior business dealings from which the jury could have inferred that [the infringer] believed that it needed to . . . license [the patents] to avoid infringement"
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.
837 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Cited 76 times 10 Legal AnalysesNoting that “where the volume of non-infringing sales is independent of the extent of United States infringement, those sales should not be used as a measure of damages flowing from the domestic infringement”
WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp.
2016-2211 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2018) Cited 47 timesHolding that in reviewing "under the new Halo standard" a district court's award of enhanced damages, "we must determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [the defendant] acted despite a risk of infringement that was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to [the defendant]"
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
913 F.3d 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2019) Cited 14 times 3 Legal AnalysesInvalidating all but one asserted claim and determining that "the award can be sustained if there was undisputed evidence that the technology covered by [the remaining claim] was necessary to perform the [infringing method]"
Oxford Gene Technology Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.
345 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D. Del. 2004) Cited 29 timesHolding expert report satisfied Rule 702 and heavy reliance on two of fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors went to weight and not admissibility of opinion
Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.
297 F. Supp. 3d 501 (D. Del. 2017) Cited 10 timesHolding experts may opine about ultimate conclusion of enablement
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,677 times 255 Legal AnalysesAdopting the Daubert standard
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,043 times 16 Legal AnalysesAllowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Section 284 - Damages
35 U.S.C. § 284 Cited 2,073 times 194 Legal AnalysesGranting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"