In March 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a $240 million judgment against Microsoft, which resulted from an Eastern District of Texas jury verdict of willful infringement. i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010).1 Much has been written since that time about comments that the Federal Circuit panel made concerning the sufficiency of the evidence that supported the jury’s damage award, with many commentators seeing in the decision an avenue of attack to limit the scope of damages in future patent infringement trials.
Whatever the accuracy of those commentators’ predictions may be concerning the future metes and bounds of competent evidence to be admitted and considered in determining “damages adequate to compensate” a successful patentee litigant, one aspect of the court’s decision, which has not attracted much attention, may be the more important lesson to draw from the decision. The lesson is an intensely practical one, which bears attention and serves as a reminder for all litigants and litigators, not merely in patent cases concerning the conduct of trials.
Procedural History
