InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 27
Posts 3565
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/25/2003

Re: lbcb123 post# 17178

Wednesday, 01/10/2018 3:05:40 PM

Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:05:40 PM

Post# of 18730
Appeal decision is out

DYK, Circuit Judge.
A jury found Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) liable
for infringement of four patents owned by Finjan,
Inc. (“Finjan”) and awarded approximately $39.5 million
in reasonable royalty damages. After trial, the district
court concluded that the ’844 patent was patent-eligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and denied Blue Coat’s post-trial
motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and a
new trial. Blue Coat appeals.
We find no error in the district court’s subject matter
eligibility determination as to the ’844 patent and agree
that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of
infringement of the ’844 and ’731 patents. However, we
conclude that Blue Coat was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement
for the ’968 patent because the accused
products do not perform the claimed “policy index” limitation.
On appeal, Blue Coat does not challenge the verdict
of infringement for the ’633 patent.
With respect to damages, we affirm the award with
respect to the ’731 and ’633 patents. We vacate the damages
award for the ’968 patent, as there was no infringement.
With respect to the ’844 patent, we agree with Blue
Coat that Finjan failed to apportion damages to the
infringing functionality and that the $8-per-user royalty
rate was unsupported by substantial evidence.
We therefore affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand
to the district court for further consideration of the
damages issue as to the ’844 patent.

more at
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2520.Opinion.1-8-2018.1.PDF