April 11, 2023
Authored and Edited by Sneha Nyshadham; Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd., v. Valve Corp., No. 2021-2296 (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of willful infringement, claim construction, and denial of enhanced damages, but vacated and remanded the finding of estoppel.
Ironburg accused Valve’s Steam Controller of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525, which is directed to a handheld controller for a video game console. Valve also filed an IPR petition, which was partially instituted. Before trial, the district court held that Valve is estopped from asserting the grounds that were not instituted or not asserted. The jury found willful infringement, and the district court denied Valve’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial, and also denied Ironburg’s motion for enhanced damages. The parties appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the challenged claims are not indefinite because the patent provides sufficient guidance for a POSITA as to the scope of the claims. The Federal Circuit also held that the jury had substantial evidence to conclude that the Steam Controllers infringe. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the denial of Valve’s JMOL on willful infringement or a new trial because Valve received a pre-suit notice but did not attempt to design around. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s finding of estoppel with respect to the invalidity grounds discovered later through a third-party IPR petition, holding that the district court improperly placed the burden of proof on Valve to show that it could not reasonably have raised the non-petitioned grounds in its petition when, instead, the burden should have been placed on Ironburg. Lastly, the district court properly rejected enhanced damages because there was no evidence of copying.
Copyright © 2023 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.