Careers

At M&G, we dedicate ourselves to finding the best solutions to our clients’ challenges, no matter where it takes us.

Case Studies

Industries

Offices

About Merchant & Gould

Pages

People

News Room

Practices

Staff

Home - Merchant & Gould P.C.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?as_sdt=6%2C24&amp;as_vis=1&amp;case=6646724395257110162&amp;hl=en&amp;q=Omega%20Patents%2C%20LLC%20v.%20CalAmp%20Corp." target="" rel="noopener"><em>Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.</em>, Nos. 2020-1793, -1794 (Sept. 14, 2021)</a>.

contentpilot/introduction

Omega sued CalAmp for infringement of four patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,032,278 and 6,756,885, which relate to systems for remote control and monitoring of vehicle functions that are compatible with multiple vehicle types. In a first trial, all asserted claims were found not invalid and various other determinations were made. The appeal of that judgment resulted in a remand for a new trial on infringement, damages, and willfulness. On retrial, a jury found, among other things, that CalAmp directly infringed the ’278 patent and that CalAmp’s customers directly infringed, but CalAmp did not induce infringement of, the ’885 patent. The jury awarded royalty damages of $5 per unit. The district court upheld the jury’s verdict and awarded an ongoing royalty of $5 per unit. CalAmp appealed, and Omega cross appealed the ongoing royalty rate.

core/paragraph

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first addressed CalAmp’s appeal of the finding that its customers directly infringed the ’885 patent. The Court declined to review this issue on the merits because the finding of no induced infringement made CalAmp the prevailing party. The Court nevertheless vacated the finding, concluding it was appropriate to expunge an “adverse decision that would be reviewable had this [issue] not become moot.” The Court next affirmed the judgment of infringement of the ’278 patent. As to damages, CalAmp’s appeal raised two alleged errors: (1) not allowing CalAmp’s damages expert to provide rebuttal testimony; and (2) flaws in Omega’s damages theory. On the expert testimony issue, the Court concluded the district court improperly relied on “law of the case” to support its exclusion. Specifically, the Court explained that its mandate following the first appeal gave the district court power on remand to reconsider any prior rulings that might be viewed in a new light on retrial. Accordingly, law of the case did not preclude Omega’s proffered expert testimony. On Omega’s damages theory, the Court concluded the $5 per unit royalty rate did not reflect apportionment and that Omega failed to show the incremental value of the ’278 patent (or an entitlement to entire market value). Accordingly, the Court ordered a new trial on damages and dismissed Omega’s cross appeal as to the ongoing royalty rate as moot.

CAFC Affirms Judgment of Infringement and Orders New Trial on Damages

Related Professionals