On June 26, 2013, Judge O’Connor issued a thorough ruling (available here) in Summit 6 v. Samsung. A jury had earlier awarded $15 million Summit 6 in damages (writing “lump sum” on the verdict form) due to Samsung’s infringement of Summit 6’s patent.
Judge O’Connor held, among other things, that:
- there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding of indirect infringement;
- there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the patent-in-suit was not invalid;
- the jury’s damages award was supported by sufficient evidence;
- settlement agreements concerning the patent-in-suit were proper evidence;
- the patent-in-suit was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct;
- the jury’s $15 million award constituted a “lump sum” damages award such that the $15 million would compensate Summit 6 for the life of the patent (i.e., there cannot be any future damages awarded to Summit 6); and
- the pre-judgment interest rate should be calculated using the state statutory rate of 5%, compounded annually.