直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Omega Patents Showcases the Need to Specifically Identify Prior Art and the Bases of Willful Infringement

April 16, 2019

Authored and Edited by Connor J. Hansen; Samhitha M. Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corporation, No. 2018-1309 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding that the asserted claims of four patents are not invalid, affirmed a finding of infringement for a subset of the claims, remanded a finding of infringement for the remaining claims, and vacated an award of enhanced damages.

CalAmp argued that the district court’s claim construction was erroneous and that its invalidity argument would include additional prior art if the claims were correctly construed.  It did not identify the additional prior art or attempt to enter it into the record.  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit found CalAmp failed to satisfy the requirements of FRCP 46 and affirmed the validity finding.

The Federal Circuit also vacated and remanded findings of infringement for a subset of the asserted claims, agreeing with CalAmp that Omega failed to show direct infringement or the requisite mental state for induced infringement. 

Finally, the enhanced damages award was based on a finding that “CalAmp willfully infringed a valid patent” but did not specify which claims or patents were willfully infringed.  The Federal Circuit vacated the willfulness finding and the enhanced damages award because it was unclear which claims the jury believed to be willfully infringed. 

Tags

damages, infringement

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2019 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. 

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

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

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP