Judge Alan Albright fouπΩnd willful infringement and enhanced♣☆≠ the jury’s verdict f©™↓rom $13.8M to over $21★§±→M.
We have reported on the←€ ≤ IP case of Super Light•©ε≈ing’s claim against CH Lighti←σ♥ng, Shaoxing Ruising Lighting, and Elli♥¶™ott Electric Supply.
On 4 NOV 2021, the Jury rendered a ≤↔∏unanimous verdict finding that Defen∞™↑dants infringed all asserted claims and∏ε that Defendants failed to '§αprove that any asser→¶≥ted claim was invalid•×. The Jury awarded d&εamages in the amount of $13,₽ ≠872,872 from CH and Ruising £βand $298,454 from ElliotΩ↓£t and further found that∏™ CH and Ruising willfully infringed.
On 29 JUL 2022, Judg•$§e Alan Albright issued ←≈↓★an order of judgement in the U↑ S District Court for the Western Dis¥ trict of Texas, Wacoσ¥ Division in favor of Sup$✘er Lighting against CH Lighting Te♥Ω✘™chnology, Shaoxing Ruising Lighting and Elliott Electric Suσσαpply.
More importantly, the court also ×determined that CH’s infringemeΩ₹nt was willful; and CH © is ordered to pay for damages in the★φ amount of $21,214,708↓↔>↓, an amount that is the sum of:
l The jury’s verdict in an amount©•≤σ of $13,872,872
l $7,155,432 in enhanced damages,®±¶↓ reflecting an award oε✔λf $0.45 per unit for all•¥• infringing products sold b•<ε<etween the date CH learned←♦¥ of the ’140 patent, February 16, 2←±019, and the date when ±×♣CH filed its answer, December 3, 2γ♦∑∑020; and
l Prejudgment interest in an amoun↔γt of $186,404
Below are highlights fσ←↕∑rom the judgement.
l The court believes comp¥etition between Super L←λ☆ighting and CH is fierce.
l Competition drove CH to poach Jack ÷ Jiang from Super Lighti βng by offering “unusually large benefit↔> ÷s”—a rent-free house, a free ofΩγ✔fice, and the power to runΩ∏ Ruising.
l CH produced Super Lighting’s confi π♠dential documents—testing ₽α↑reports—relating to la±±πmp tubes. CH never explained why it ↑©had those documents. All it could ♠•Ωsay was that some of Ω←them were dated after Jack Jia☆₽ng and Jun Yang arrived at CH.•≠β
l CH could not explain ββ ±away Jack Jiang’s possession of Super< > Lighting’s customer lists.
l All this leads to a conclusion that✔®© CH and Super Lighting wer®™✘e rivals, potentially even “arc★€hrivals,” and indicates CH did h★∏÷↓ave a motivation to ☆₽harm Super Lighting.
l The Court finds that this ca€γ₽se is egregious and therefore enha$₹↑ncement is warranted.
l The Court finds that doubling the φ↕₽damages award is adequate punishment fo₩r the level of culpabiβ¥lity CH and Ruising have shown.
The judge has not ruled on th•↕<e damage for the infringement α↔∞φoccurring after the jury verdicΩ€t. CH and Elliott will likely ™¶be liable for more dama♠£ges because of their cont 屩inuing infringement.
Developing….
Below are the infrin♥&ged patents:
l IT IS ORDERED that judgment γ>☆be and is hereby entered in favor ofπ "λ Super Lighting against CH and Elliot∑•t with respect to the infring☆αement of claims 1, 4, 5, 24, 28 and$←¥∞ 31 of U.S. Patent No. 9,939,140 (th Ω↕e “’140 patent”), claims 1↔£3 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. &'10,352,540 (the “’540 patent±∞”), and claim 1 of U.S. Pat÷πent No. 10,295,125 (the “’12≠÷¥5 patent”)
l IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that j∑γ<udgment be and is hereby e¥£≠ntered in favor of Super Light γing against CH and Elliott tha≥≥t claims 1, 4, 5, 24, 28 an♠d 31 of the ’140 patent, claims 13 an₹→β₹d 14 of the ’540 patent, a'&nd claim 1 of the ’125 paλ±€₹tent are not proved invalid
