Patent litigation, despite its labyrinthine complexities and protracted timescales, continues to be a captivating domain within the legal landscape. Last week’s analytical exploration of a nuisance-value approach to settling patent cases revealed the significant contextual implications following a key verdict by a leading patent judge.
Today’s article pivots to the other side of the damages spectrum. Specifically, it concerns the potential ramifications of the Federal Circuit’s reversal of VLSI’s $2 billion verdict against Intel in March 2021. The basis for that verdict was the infringement of two patents, as per VLSI’s 2019 complaint. This is but one of the staggering 81 cases involving these two entities listed on Docket Navigator. Whether the litigation will continue for years or reach a resolution through settlement is yet to be seen.
The Federal Circuit’s opinion is crucial to our understanding. Initially, it affirmed VLSI’s ‘373 patent infringement but dismissed the equivalent infringement finding for the ‘759 patent. While a 50% success rate might be enviable in baseball, it is far from satisfactory in high-stakes legal proceedings. Then, VLSI faced an additional hurdle when the Federal Circuit considered their damages calculation presented to the jury flawed, thereby mandating a new trial on damages.
This complexity escalates considering the ‘373 patent underwent successful IPR with a ruling in Intel’s favor expected to be under Federal Circuit’s review soon. To futher cloud the legal landscape, there seem to rumors that VLSI has $300 million insurance on the overturned verdict [1]. In the wake of this patent enforcement whirlwind, Intel has made its own notable patent monetization moves [2].
These all culminate into a precarious challenge- finding a path toward resolution. Yet we may witness a few more rounds of legal debate at WDTX first, predominantly concerning Intel’s license defense and the damage trial redo. The sound reverberations following Federal Circuit’s reversal of VLSI’s billions boost will undoubtedly stimulate enriched dialogue.
If you have any comments or inquiries or interesting topic suggestions, feel free to reach out via email at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or Twitter: @gkroub.
This article was originally published at Above The Law.