Experience
Ericsson, Inc.
TCL Communication Technology
In a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Texas’s ruling of patent eligibility, and as a result, vacated the entire judgement—worth at least $110 million—against Finnegan client TCL Communication. The Federal Circuit invalidated the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea.
Ericsson sued TCL in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement, after which TCL moved for summary judgment of patent ineligibility. The district court denied the summary judgment motion, and the case went to trial. The jury found that TCL willfully infringed and awarded Ericsson $75 million in damages. The court enhanced the award by $25 million for willful infringement and awarded another $10 million in pre-judgment interest plus an undetermined amount in post-judgment interest.
Finnegan was brought on to handle the appeal. It argued that Ericsson inconsistently asserted the patent claims narrowly at summary judgment (for patent eligibility) and broadly at trial (for infringement). Pointing to this inconsistency, Finnegan successfully argued that the claims amounted to nothing more than the abstract idea of controlling access to resources. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit rejected Ericsson’s attempt to import limitations from the specification into the claims and held Ericsson responsible for its past characterization of the claims’ breadth, which cut against its patent-eligibility position on appeal.
Because it invalidated the asserted claims, the Federal Circuit vacated the entire judgment against TCL. TCL had also raised arguments on appeal regarding damages and willfulness, but the Federal Circuit did not reach those arguments because they were moot. The Federal Circuit further awarded costs to TCL. Based on that award, Finnegan further persuaded the Eastern District of Texas to tax $2.35 million in costs.
Ericsson, Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology, 18-2003, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Prost, Chen
TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. et al.
Federal Circuit upholds $140 million judgment for Sprint on VoIP patents
Sprint Communications Company LP
Federal Circuit upholds enhanced damages award to Finnegan client WCM Industries
WCM Industries, Inc.
$45 million judgment overturned for Ericsson
Ericsson Inc.
Cox Communications v. Sprint Communication Co.
Sprint Communication Co.
Finnegan revives key Jublia® patent at the Federal Circuit
Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Bausch Health Care
Eagle Comtronics Inc. v. Arrow Communication Labs.
Eagle Comtronics Inc.
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.