. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 29216

$________ - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - PATENT INFRINGEMENT - PATENT VALIDITY - HOLDER OF PATENTS FOR DIGITAL CAMERA TECHNOLOGY ALLEGES THAT CANON COMMITTED PATENT INFRINGEMENT.

United States District Court, District of Delaware

The plaintiff property consulting firm claimed that it holds four patents for digital camera technology and contended that the defendant willfully infringed upon its patents. The defendant Canon denied the plaintiff’s allegations, contending that it did not infringe on any of the plaintiff’s patents.

The plaintiff St. Clair is an intellectual property consulting firm that owns four U.S. patents on digital camera technology.

The four patents at issue covered technology used in multiple- file format digital cameras, including the very popular digital cameras that can take both still photos and short movie clips.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant Canon imports, manufactures, uses, offers to sell, and sells digital camcorders and digital cameras in the United States and in doing so, infringes, induces infringement, and contributes to infringement of the four patents asserted in the case. The plaintiff also contended that Canon’s infringement of the patents-in-suit was willful.

St. Clair contended that 57 Canon digital cameras and camcorders models met the elements of the asserted claims and, therefore, Canon’s importing, manufacturing, using, offering to sell, and selling these cameras in the United States directly infringed upon the plaintiff’s patents. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the patents-in-suit are valid or that the patents are unenforceable.

The defendant Canon denied that its digital cameras and digital camcorders infringed on any of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Canon further contended that it was not liable for direct infringement, inducing infringement, or contributory infringement. Canon likewise denied that it willfully infringed any of the patents-in-suit. Finally, Canon contended that the patents-in-suit were invalid and unenforceable.

The matter went to trial for a total of eight days. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury determined after two days of deliberations that the defendant did, in fact, infringe on the plaintiff’s patents. The jury awarded damages consisting of $________ for the reasonable royalty for digital camera sales and $________ representing the reasonable royalties for digital camcorder sales for the period in question.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.