United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS CAYMAN, LTD.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, and SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. No. 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the
Judgment and for Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment Interest
(Dkt. #335). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the
Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's
9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action against
Defendants, alleging infringement of United States Patent
Nos. 6, 271, 884 (the “'884 Patent), 7, 092, 029
(the “'029 Patent”), and 6, 836, 290 (the
“'290 Patent”). On February 8, 2016, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Particularly, the
jury found the following: (1) Defendants infringed Claims 1,
5, 14, and 17 of the '884 Patent; (2) Defendants
infringed Claims 1, 6, and 7 of the '029 Patent; (3)
Defendants willfully infringed the patents-in-suit; and (4)
Claim 10 of the '290 Patent was invalid for obviousness
(Dkt. #253). The jury awarded $4, 840, 772 in damages for
infringement of the '884 Patent and $2, 129, 608.50 in
damages for infringement of the '029 Patent (Dkt. #253).
On August 24, 2016, the Court awarded enhanced damages for
willful infringement and entered final judgment (Dkt. #329;
September 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed its motion to amend (Dkt.
#335). On October 11, 2016, Defendants filed a response (Dkt.
#340). On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply (Dkt.
#344). On November 3, 2016, Defendants filed a sur-reply
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide
for motions for reconsideration. Shepherd v. Int'l
Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004).
Depending on when a party files such a motion, the Court may
construe it under Rule 59(e) as a motion to alter or amend a
judgment or under Rule 60(b) as a motion for relief from a
final judgment. Id.; Williams v. Thaler,
602 F.3d 291, 303 (5th Cir. 2010) (“When a litigant
files a motion seeking a change in judgment, courts typically
determine the appropriate motion based on whether the
litigant filed the motion within Rule 59(e)'s time
limit.”). If a party files a motion within than
twenty-eight days from the judgment or order of which the
party complains, it is considered a Rule 59(e) motion;
otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. See
Hamilton Rothschilds v. Williams Rothschilds, 147 F.3d
367, 371 n.19 (5th Cir. 1998). Here, Plaintiff filed its
motion within twenty-eight days of the Court entering final
judgment. The Court will construe Plaintiff's motion as a
motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).
59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a
judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d
473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In Re Transtexas Gas.
Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”
Id. at 479 (citing Clancy v. Emp'rs Health
Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)). In
the Fifth Circuit, Rule 59(e) standards “favor the
denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.” S.
Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606,
611 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Under Rule 59(e),
amending a judgment is appropriate (1) where there has been
an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) where the
movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously
unavailable; or (3) where there has been a manifest error of
law or fact. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702
F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Schiller v.
Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir.
2003)). A motion under Rule 59 cannot be used to raise
arguments or claims “that could, and should, have been
made before the judgment issued.” Id. (citing
Marseilles Homeowners Condo. Ass'n v. Fid. Nat. Ins.
Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 2008)).
of the Judgment
seeks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to amend
the judgment to reflect Defendants' sales through trial.
jury awarded $6, 970, 380.50 to Plaintiff for damages
incurred through the date of the verdict-$4, 840, 772 for
infringement of the '884 Patent and $2, 129, 608.50 for
infringement of '029 Patent. These damages figures relate
to half of the amounts that Plaintiff's damages expert
put forth at trial. See Dkt. #318, Feb. 3, 2016 P.M.
Trial Tr. at 35:8-13 (calculating damages for infringement of
the '884 Patent as $9, 681, 544 and $4, 259, 217 for the
'029 Patent). Plaintiff claims-and Defendants do not
contest-that the jury implicitly found that Defendants owed
Plaintiff a royalty of four cents and two cents per accused
product for the '884 and '029 Patents, respectively.
See Dkt. #318, Feb. 3, 2016 P.M. Trial Tr. at
32:19-23 (showing Plaintiff's expert calculated a royalty
rate of eight cents for the '884 Patent (anti-flicker)
and a royalty rate of four cents for the '029 Patent
(preflash)). Following the trial, Defendants produced sales
data for the accused products through the first quarter of
2016. Plaintiff's expert applied the jury's four-cent
and two-cent rates to Defendants' updated sales data and
adjusted the data to accrue only through the date of the
verdict. The updated damages figure results in a total of $6,
412, 399.64 in damages for infringement. Enhancing this
updated damages figure results in a judgment totaling $19,
237, 198.92. While maintaining the positions set forth in
their Rule 50 motion, Defendants do not dispute the updated
damages figure or the new judgment amount.
correct the error in the damages award, the Court therefore
amends the judgment to reflect the updated damages figure and
the award of enhanced damages. As such, Plaintiff is entitled
to $6, 412, 399.64 as damages for infringement of the
'884 Patent and the '029 Patent. When such damages
are enhanced, Plaintiff is entitled to $19, 237, 198.92 as a
final judgment. The Court adopts and incorporates its prior
opinions setting forth why enhanced damages are proper (Dkt.
#329; Dkt. #361). Imposition of an Ongoing Royalty
Plaintiff also seeks an ongoing royalty against Defendants
for infringing sales that have occurred and continue to occur
after the jury rendered its verdict. Defendants respond that
Plaintiff fails to prove the need for an ongoing royalty.
Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not
proved that any new products introduced by Defendants are
colorable variations of infringing products. Defendants
further contend that Plaintiff has not shown that an ongoing
royalty is necessary to effectuate a remedy.
35 U.S.C. § 284, a successful patentee shall be awarded
damages “adequate to compensate for the infringement,
but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use
made of the invention by the infringer, together with
interest and costs as fixed by the court.” The Federal
Circuit has interpreted this provision to permit a court to
award “‘an ongoing royalty for patent
infringement in lieu of an injunction' barring the
infringing conduct.” Prism Techs. LLCv.
Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. 2016-1456, 2017 WL 877221, at
*12 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2017) (quoting Paice LLC v. Toyota
Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1314 (Fed. Cir. ...