Damages remitted and enhanced 25% for willfulness; JMOL defenses waived
TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, C.A. No. 05-747-SLR, July 31, 2008.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for JMOL or a new trial is denied. Damages awarded by jury of $45.3 million are remitted to $18.6 million. Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages due to willful infringement is granted in part. Damages are enhanced by 25% to $23,250,000. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is granted. Prejudgment interest on $18.6 million is awarded, compounded quarterly at the prime rate. Post-judgment interest on $18.6 million from 9/19/07 (the date of judgment) is awarded at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the calendar week preceding.
This case involves a patented system for locating cellular telephones using signals which are transmitted from a cellular telephone to a cell site over reverse control channels. A jury trial was held 9/4/07 to 9/14/07. The jury decided in favor of plaintiff, found willful infringement, and rejected defendant’s fraud and promissory estoppel defenses. It awarded damages in the amount of $45.3 million to compensate for lost profits for all five phases, fulfilled and unfulfilled, of a contract to supply a cell phone geolocation system to a foreign company. The court remits the damages to $18.6 million based on the speculative nature of the future damages assessed. Defendant’s equitable defenses remain pending. At the close of plaintiff’s case-in chief, defense counsel moved for JMOL based on (1) no proof of offer to sell within US; (2) damages should be limited to equipment actually shipped abroad; no means-plus-function elements due to failure of proof of corresponding structures. In addition counsel noted there were “plenty of other detailed motions” that could be made regarding claim terms, construction, and infringement but focused on three. Defendant’s statement that it would move for JMOL in all the claims, for all the accused products, and for damages” was insufficient. The court found insufficient detail for other bases including willfulness, non-infringing alternatives, “government use,” fraud, and promissory estoppel, and ruled the defendant was precluded from bringing JMOL motion as to those claims. The court rejected the argument that defendant was not required to move for JMOL with respect to its own claims, i.e. invalidity.
A full copy of the opinion is available here.
