Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corporation

8 Citing cases

  1. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.

    626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 413 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court "was not obligated to provide additional guidance to the jury" beyond directing the jury to apply the "ordinary meaning" of a claim term

    The district court denied those motions, but enhanced damages by 50%, awarded damages that accrued between the verdict and entry of judgment, and entered a permanent injunction. Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., No. 06-CV-369, 2009 WL 2524495 (D.Del. Aug.18, 2009) (" Memorandum"). Defendants appeal the verdicts of infringement of Finjan's patents and damages, but do not appeal the jury's determinations regarding noninfringement of Defendants' patents, validity of all patents, or willfulness with respect to infringement of Finjan's patents.

  2. Vectura Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC

    Civil Action No. 16-638-RGA (D. Del. Sep. 12, 2019)

    This Court has noted that "the prime rate best compensate[s] a patentee for lost revenues during the period of infringement because the prime rate represents the cost of borrowing money, which is a better measure of the harm suffered as a result of the loss of the use of money over time." Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., 2009 WL 2524495, at * 13 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2009), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). I do not believe Plaintiff's low borrowing rate counsels otherwise.

  3. Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.

    No. 16-cv-1122-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2019)   Cited 6 times

    This Court has noted that "the prime rate best compensate[s] a patentee for lost revenues during the period of infringement because the prime rate represents the cost of borrowing money, which is a better measure of the harm suffered as a result of the loss of the use of money over time." Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., 2009 WL 2524495, at *13 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2009), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Baxalta argues that the Treasury bill rate should apply because there is no evidence that Bayer needed to borrow money as a result of being temporarily deprived of the damages award. (D.I. 450 at 5).

  4. Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.

    No. 15-cv-152-RGA (D. Del. Jul. 24, 2019)   Cited 4 times

    This Court has noted that "the prime rate best compensate[s] a patentee for lost revenues during the period of infringement because the prime rate represents the cost of borrowing money, which is a better measure of the harm suffered as a result of the loss of the use of money over time." Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., 2009 WL 2524495, at *13 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2009), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As for the compounding period, the prior license agreements relied on by the parties' experts specify quarterly payments with interest compounded quarterly.

  5. Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Sonic Innovations

    C.A. No. 05-422 (GMS) (D. Del. Jun. 7, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    After reviewing the defendants' response, the court is convinced that both parties engaged in litigation tactics that could be viewed as harmful by the other side, but are not improper. Moreover, ETG has not adduced sufficient evidence that Widex deliberately copied the patents-in-suit. But see Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72825 (D. Del. 2009) ("Finjan offered evidence indicating that Secure used the Finjan patents as a `road map' to develop its Webwasher products."). Additionally, although Widex's size and financial condition and the fact that Widex continued to sell the accused products after it was sued without any remedial action weigh in favor of enhanced damages, those factors alone do not provide a sufficient basis for an enhancement.

  6. Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

    715 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2010)   Cited 19 times
    Recommending that costs related to scanning, disk copies, mini-scripts and "CD Deposition Litigation Packages" be disallowed

    Home Depot takes issue with Powell's characterization of its conduct, and maintains that it defended against this action vigorously, but also ethically and reasonably. While the court is mindful that hard-fought, zealous advocacy does not necessarily amount to vexatious or bad faith litigation, see Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing, Corp., 2009 WL 2524495, at * 17 (D.Del. Aug. 18, 2009), the court finds that the record is replete with instances of actual litigation misconduct that unnecessarily prolonged this litigation and wasted judicial resources. For instance, in response to Powell's discovery request for documentation about injuries suffered by Home Depot employees when using radial arm saws, Home Depot inundated Powell with three bankers boxes containing more than six thousand pages of irrelevant data concerning forklift accidents.

  7. Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.

    723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that defendant should not be enjoined from using ceramic capacitors dubbed technology of “unusual social interest”

    Having considered the issue, the Court agrees with what See, e.g., Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., C.A. No. 06-369 (GMS), 2009 WL 2524495, at *15 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2009) ("While there is no longer an affirmative duty of care that requires an accused infringer to obtain an opinion of counsel, the fact that Secure did not seek any such opinion may be considered in the totality of circumstances surrounding willful infringement."); Creative Internet Adver. Corp. v. YahooA Inc., No. 6:07cv354, 2009 WL 2382132, at *5 (E.D. Tex. July 30, 2009) (noting that while it is not determinative, "the lack of opinion of counsel is one factor of many that the jury could have taken into account in determining whether Defendant willfully infringed"); GSI Group, Inc. v. Sukup Mfg. Co., 591 F. Supp. 2d 977, 981 (C.D. Ill. 2008) ("An alleged infringer's decision not to secure an opinion is relevant to show willfulness, but an alleged infringer is not required to secure an attorney opinion letter before marketing a device to avoid a claim of willfulness.");

  8. Baker Hughes Incorporated v. Nalco Company

    676 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D. Tex. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    In fact, "[c]ourts awarding permanent injunctions typically do so under circumstances where [the] plaintiff practices its invention and is a direct market competitor [of the alleged infringer]." Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., No. 06-369, 2009 WL 2524495, at *10 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2009) (quoting Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 554, 558 (D. Del. 2008)). For further guidance on this point, the Court looks to the Federal Circuit case Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp. 551 F.3d 1323 (2008). In pertinent part, Acumed stated: