Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., et. al. (Fed. Cir. March 25, 2013) (available here).

At the district court, the defendant recovered attorney fees and costs after the court held that plaintiff’s electronic anti-shoplifting devices patent was not infringed, was invalid, and was unenforceable. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, where: 1) the infringement charge was not shown to have been made in bad faith or objectively baseless; and 2) the district court’s determination that this was an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. section 285 is not supported by the record.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. March 26, 2013) (available here).

Plaintiff owned patents related to power supplies for electronic devices. The district court held that defendants willfully infringed plaintiff’s patents and awarded damages to the defendant. The Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court’s finding of non-obviousness; 2) affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s findings on claim construction; 3) vacated as to the district court’s order of remittitur and its attendant damages award; 4) reversed on the district court’s exclusion of evidence related to pre-notice price erosion and in its refusal to grant plaintiff a post-verdict accounting; and 5) vacated and remanded as to the district court’s finding of willful infringement.

All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 15, 2013 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.