Permanent injunction issues and Court awards enhanced damages
Finjan Software, LTD. v. Secure Computing Corporation, C.A. No. 06-369-GMS, August 18, 2009.
Sleet, C. J. All of defendants’ post-trial motions are denied, as well as plaintiff’s renewed motion for invalidity. However, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction and grants in part plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages and its motion to amend the judgment and for an accounting of sales.
Following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, both parties file a series of post trial motions. The patents-in-suit relate to computer networks. Plaintiff’s patents relate to “hostile downloadables” while defendant’s patents relate to “firewalls.” The Court concludes that the jury’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that a new trial is unwarranted. There is substantial evidence in the record to conclude that plaintiff’s patents-in-suit are not invalid based on anticipation or obviousness. In addition, there is substantial support for the jury’s finding that defendant’s accused products literally infringe or infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Next, the evidence shows that defendant acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement supporting the jury’s finding of willfulness. The Court also gives deference to the jury’s findings that defendant’s ‘364 patent is not invalid based on anticipation and obviousness where there is no legal or factual basis to overturn the jury’s findings .
As for a permanent injunction, plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm as a result of defendant’s infringement since the parties are direct competitors in the network security market. Next, the Court is unconvinced that the jury’s award of damages is either grossly excessive, unreasonable, or sufficiently shocking so as to warrant a new trial. Therefore, defendant’s request to amend or alter the award or for a new trial is denied. On the matter of accounting, plaintiff is entitled to an accounting for those additional infringing sales that occurred up until the date of the entry of the judgment. Prejudgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterlyand postjudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 will apply. The Court reviews each of the factors set forth in Read Crop. v. Portec, Inc. and finds that the factors weigh in favor of an award of enhanced damages in the amount of 50% of the amended jury damages award. Postjudgment interest shall not be applied to these damages. However, defendant’s conduct does not rise to the level of bad faith to warrant an award of fees or costs.
