InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

zombywolf: The case/decision was not about another company inducing Cisco to infringe, it was that Cisco had induced other companies to infringe. As described below in the introduction to the Supreme Court's decision Cisco was charged with direct infringement of Commil's patent, and also inducing others to infringe the patent.


"Commil USA, LLC, holder of a patent for a method of implementing short-range wireless networks, filed suit, claiming that respondent Cisco Systems, Inc., a maker and seller of wireless net- working equipment, had directly infringed Commil’s patent in its networking equipment and had induced others to infringe the patent by selling the infringing equipment for them to use. After two trials, Cisco was found liable for both direct and induced infringement.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-896_l53m.pdf


The case goes back to this Eastern District of Texas Decision (CASE NO. 2:07-CV-34)

AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
On May 11, 2010, a jury trial commenced in this case. On May 17, 2010, the case was submitted to the jury, and the jury returned a verdict finding that defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) had directly infringed claims 1, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395 (“’395 Patent”) (See Dkt. No. 335). The jury, however, did not find that Cisco had induced infringement of the ’395 Patent. Furthermore, the jury failed to find the ’395 Patent invalid. The jury awarded plaintiff Commil USA, LLC (“Commil”) $3,726,207 to compensate for Cisco’s direct infringement.

Subsequent thereto, Commil filed a motion for new trial on the issues of induced infringement and damages and the court granted Commil’s motion (Dkt. No. 361). The new trial began on April 5, 2011. On April 8, 2011, the case was submitted to the jury, and the jury returned a verdict finding that Cisco had induced infringement of claims 1, 4, and 6 of the ’395 Patent (Dkt. No. 422). The jury awarded Commil $63,791,153 to compensate for Cisco’s induced infringement