WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
953 F. Supp. 2d 731
S.D. Tex.2013Background
- WesternGeco sued ION for patent infringement involving marine seismic streamer positioning technology across four WesternGeco patents ('520, '967, '607, '038).
- Jury found ION infringed and held willful; damages awarded: $93.4 million lost profits and $12.5 million royalty.
- Post-trial motions were filed by ION and WesternGeco; court resolves multiple JMOL, Rule 59, and other motions.
- Court grants entry of findings and conclusions of no willful infringement against ION, denies willfulness by WesternGeco, and awards prejudgment interest and costs in part.
- Permanent injunction or ongoing royalty is granted in favor of WesternGeco; supplemental damages may be awarded for post-verdict sales; costs awarded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for Bittleston patents | WesternGeco owns the patents via assignments; ownership disputed by ION. | WesternGeco lacks written chain of title from inventors; lacks standing. | WesternGeco has standing; motion denied. |
| Invalidity: anticipation and obviousness | Workman/'895 and related references anticipate/are obvious; jury erred. | Prior art renders claims invalid; should grant new trial. | Rule 59 motion denied; jury verdict not against weight of evidence. |
| Enablement and enablement findings | Court should require explicit enablement for Bittleston and Zajac. | Enablement shown; no need for extra findings. | Motion for findings/conclusions denied; no new trial on enablement; enablement supported. |
| Infringement findings under 35 U.S.C. § 271 | ION infringed multiple claims (18, 19, 23 of '520; 15 of '967; 15 of '607; 14 of '038). | Non-infringement or DOE arguments negate infringement. | JMOL/New Trial on non-infringement denied; infringement sustained on multiple claims. |
| Willful infringement and exceptional case | ION acted willfully and knowingly; request for enhanced damages/attorneys’ fees. | No willful infringement; defenses substantial; case not exceptional. | No willful infringement; case not exceptional; findings of no willful infringement granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of JMOL; substantial evidence standard)
- In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (obviousness as a jury question with proper instruction)
- Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obviousness and enabling disclosure standards)
- Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation, Inc., 361 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004) (renewed judgment as a matter of law; weighing all evidence)
- Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., 605 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (enablement questions amenable to jury resolution)