822 F. Supp. 2d 639
E.D. Tex.2011Background
- Mondis moved for supplemental damages for 2011 sales and for an ongoing post-judgment royalty rate.
- Jury verdict (6/27/2011) found some claims infringed and willful; damages awarded were $15,000,000.
- Court later severed Mondis’s motion for ongoing royalties and supplemental damages into a separate case for resolution.
- Court determines supplemental damages primarily using 2011 first and second quarter data not presented to the jury, applying 0.5% (monitors) and 0.75% (televisions).
- Court adopts a post-judgment Georgia-Pacific analysis to calculate an ongoing royalty rate, using the jury verdict as a starting point and adjusting for post-judgment circumstances.
- Court finds ongoing infringement willful and enhances the rate for monitors from 0.75% to 1.50%, while televisions remain at 0.75%.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental damages for 2011 Q1–Q2 and amount | Mondis entitled to damages for undisclosed 2011 quarters. | InnoLux disputes extrapolation; challenge to admission of data. | Mondis awarded $1,971,810 for 2011 first and second quarters. |
| Ongoing post-judgment royalty rate for monitors and televisions | Post-judgment ongoing rate should reflect 2005 starting point plus changes. | Rate should reflect jury figure and post-judgment circumstances. | Monitors 1.50%; televisions 0.75%. |
| Willfulness of ongoing infringement and enhancement | Continued infringement after judgment is willful; enhancement appropriate. | Willfulness should be deferred pending appeal; defenses may defeat willfulness. | Ongoing infringement found willful; enhancement warranted. |
| Rule 60(b) reconsideration and the China Post article | N/A (Mondis responds) | InnoLux seeks relief due to hearsay admission. | Motion to reconsider denied; article admission did not alter outcome. |
| Judicial admissions vs. estoppel impacting extrapolation | Statement in briefs binds as judicial admission; supports 49,136,594 and 64,062,231 figures | Challenge to binding effect; remedies under Rule 60(b). | Court treated the admission as binding judicial admission for calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (establishes the Georgia-Pacific factors for reasonable royalty analyses)
- Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (guides enhancement analysis for willful infringement)
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW North Am., LLC, 783 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (post-verdict Georgia-Pacific analysis with Read factors; consideration of ongoing infringement)
- Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (discusses ongoing royalties and district court authority; no automatic jury trial right)
- Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (distinguishes pre- and post-verdict royalty analyses)
- In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (defines the willfulness standard as reckless disregard)
- City Nat’l Bank v. United States, 907 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1990) (binding effect of judicial admissions in some contexts)