Intellectual Property Data Depot: Intellectual Property Law and Business Library

About Us

Free Trials, News & Updates

Contact

Related Sites

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

Home

Audio Conference

Intellectual Property Prospector

Lloyds Intellectual Property Reporter

Intellectual Property Terms

Books

Disclaimer

Top 20 Monetary Relief Demanded And Contested In Intellectual Property Disputes (As of July 25, 2007)
Case	Remarks

John Evans and Evans Cooling Systems Inc. v. General Motors Corp.	Venue: Connecticut Supreme Court Status: Pending On March 15, 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the trial court for a jury trial. The plaintiffs have expanded their claims for the new trial to include a subsequent generation of engines, used in a wide variety of the Company's vehicles. Plaintiffs seek relief in excess of US$12 billion.

Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc.	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky Status: Pending Static Control is seeking US$17.8 million to US$19.5 million in damages and US$1 billion for Lanham Act violation. Wazana seeks US$2.2 million to US$2.8 million in damages and US$1 billion for Lanham Act violation. Pendl also is seeking US$3.7 to US$4.1 million in damages. All defendants also seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Microsoft Corp. v. Alcatel-Lucent	Venue: U.S. District Court for the District of California Status: Appeal Pending On Feb. 22, 2007, the jury returned a verdict in Alcatel-Lucent's favor in the first of a series of patent trials finding all the asserted claims valid and infringed. The Court then awarded US$1.52 billion in damages.

Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Rates Technology Inc.	Rates Technology Inc. sought injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory damages of more than US$1 billion damages and a trebling of damages.

The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al.	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Status: Pending According to Mr. Sandoval, media conglomerate Viacom filed a US$1 billion copyright suit against Google in March. Robert Tur, a Los Angeles-based journalist, was the first to file copyright claims against YouTube last July.

Viacom Inc. v. YouTube Inc. et al	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Status: Pending Responding in a court filing to Viacom's US$1 billion copyright infringement suit over video clips on YouTube, Google Inc. denied virtually all claims, stating that the complaint "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression."

Convolve Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Seagate Technology	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Status: Pending On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corp. and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and fraud. These claims involve Convolve and MIT's Input Shaping(R) and Convolve's Quick and Quiet(TM) technology. The plaintiffs claimed their technology is incorporated in the Company's sound barrier technology. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, US$800 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages.

Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Medtronic AVE, Inc.	Venue: Delaware Federal District Court Status: Post-trial Proceedings In December 2000, the jury in the damage action against Boston Scientific returned a verdict of US$324 million and the jury in the Medtronic action returned a verdict of US$271 million.

Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership, Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Status: Pending The New York Court ordered the Company and BMS to post a bond in the amount of US$400 million to provide security to Apotex should the Court conclude at the end of the patent litigation that the injunction was wrongly imposed. The Company and BMS have each posted a bond for half of this amount. On Jan. 2, 2007 Apotex filed a motion seeking to increase the bond amount to US$2 billion. The Court has not yet decided Apotex's motion.

Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Medtronic AVE, Inc.	Venue: U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit Status: On Appeal On Oct. 6, 1997, Cordis filed suit against Medtronic Vascular in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, claiming that Medtronic Vascular's stents violated Cordis' patents. On Dec. 22, 2000, a jury rendered a verdict of infringement against Medtronic Vascular and awarded Cordis about US$270 million in damages.

Topps Co. Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C.	Venue: New York Southern District Federal Court Status: Dismissal on Appeal The Company also filed claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and fraudulent inducement to enter into the 1985 Amendment. The Company sought disgorgement of Stani's profits, lost royalties and punitive damages, interest, costs, permanent injunctive relief and damages of more than US$250 million. The Fourth Amended Complaint also contained claims against Schweppes. However, the parties agreed to dismiss these claims on Feb. 4, 2003.

Cogent Inc. v. Northrop Grumman Corp.	Venue: Los Angeles Superior Court for the State of California Status: Pending During the discovery, the Company asserted entitlement to US$50 million for lost profits, US$100 million for loss of goodwill and business opportunities, US$6 million in royal, double damages, and unlimited attorneys’ fees.

Guidant Corp. v. St. Jude Medical Inc.	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Status: On Appeal In a jury trial involving U.S. Patent Nos. 4,316,472 and the ‘472 patents, the jury found that these patents were valid and that the Company did not infringe the ‘288 patent. The jury however found that the Company infringed the ‘472 patent. The jury awarded Guidant US$140 million in damages. In post-trial rulings, however, the judge overseeing the jury trial ruled that the ‘472 patent was invalid and not infringed. The trial court also made other rulings as part of the post-trial order, including a ruling that the ‘288 patent was invalid on several grounds.

Z4 Technologies v. Microsoft	Venue: U.S. District Court for the District of Texas Status: On Appeal In September 2004, z4 Technologies alleged that the Microsoft Windows and Office product activation functionality violates its patent rights. In April 2006, the jury rendered a US$115 million verdict against the Company. The Court increased the damages by US$25 million for willful infringement and awarded US$2 million in attorneys' fees.

Finisar Corp. v. DIRECTV Group, et al	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Status: On Appeal On June 23, 2006, the jury determined that the Company willfully infringed this patent and awarded approximately US$78.9 million in damages. The Court also increased the damages award by US$25 million, because of the jury finding of willful infringement and awarded pre-judgment interest of US$13.4 million to Finisar. Post-judgment interest accrues on the total judgment.

Tessera Inc. v. Amkor Technology Inc.	Venue: International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce Status: Arbitration Set for October 2007 Tessera filed a request for arbitration alleging that the Company breached their license agreement for failing to pay royalties due for packages assembled by the Company for customers. This request seeks about U$100 million in damages for the alleged breach.

Omax Corp. v. Flow International Corp.	Venue: U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington Status: Pending Omax filed this suit against the Company on Nov. 18, 2004. The suit alsosought to have the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 6,766,216 declared invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. Omax also seeks damages of more than US$100 million. The ‘216 patent is entitled “Method and System for Automated Software Control of Waterjet Orientation Parameters.”

TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Communication Corp	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Status: On Appeal On April 13, 2006, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company for about US$74 million dollars. The jury ruled that the Company’s patent is valid and that all of its claims are willfully infringed by each of the accused EchoStar products. On Nov. 27, 2006, the Texas Court denied EchoStar’s post-judgment motions. On Jan. 23, 2007, the Court also awarded the Company US$790,000 and US$3.5 million in pre-judgment interest and supplemental damages. On Feb. 16, 2007, the Appeals Court required EchoStar to file its opening brief.

Asyst Technologies Inc. v. Jenoptik, Jenoptik Infab Inc., Empak Inc., Emtrak Inc.	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Status: Post-trial Proceedings Pending On Jan. 31, 2007, the jury validated the Company’s U.S. Patent No. 5,097,421, which covers an intelligent wax carrier, and awarded about US$75 million in damages.

Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp.	Venue: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Status: On Appeal On April 13, 2006, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Company for about US$74.0 million dollars. The jury ruled that the Company's patent is valid and that all of its claims are willfully infringed by each of the accused EchoStar products. On Nov. 27, 2006, the Texas Court denied EchoStar's post-judgment motions. On Jan. 23, 2007, the Court also awarded the Company US$790,000 and US$3.5 million in pre-judgment interest and supplemental damages. On Feb. 16, 2007, the Appeals Court required EchoStar to file its opening brief.
Information presented herein details the biggest monetary awards contested in court, or under appeal amounting to more than US$50 million as reported in the Lloyd's Intellectual Property Reporter. These also include amounts either demanded in legal proceedings, or granted (awarded) but contested through appeals etc. To get the news when it happens, as it happens, subscribe to Lloyd's Intellectual Property Reporter here.