October 1, 2021
Authored and Edited by Daniel M. Jordan; Caitlin E. Fowler; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2020-1685 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit reinstated the jury’s willful infringement verdict and restored the district court’s award of enhanced damages.
In the first appeal for this case, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of judgment of a matter of law of no willful infringement and enhanced damages award. On remand, the district court vacated the jury’s verdict of willful infringement finding that Cisco’s conduct did not rise to the level of “wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior.” Finding no willful infringement, the district court declined to reinstate its previously vacated award of enhanced damages.
In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reinstated the jury’s willfulness verdict, finding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. In doing so, the Court clarified the distinction between conduct warranting enhanced damages and the lesser standard of willful infringement. Willful infringement requires “no more than deliberate or intentional infringement.” Enhanced damages, however, are reserved for “wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior.” The Federal Circuit also restored the district court’s original award of enhanced damages, finding the award appropriate in view of the reinstated verdict of willful infringement and detecting no abuse of discretion in the original decision.
willful infringement, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), remedies, damages
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.