IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: $30.5M verdict upheld against Amazon Web Services, post-trial challenges denied and enhanced damages refused, (Mar 30, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The court found substantial evidence supported infringement and damages but declined to enhance the damages as the conduct was not egregious.

A federal district court in Delaware has denied Amazon Web Services, Inc.’s renewed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, thereby upholding a jury verdict finding infringement and willfulness and awarding $30.5 million in damages for infringement of two networking patents. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings on infringement, validity, damages, and willfulness. It further rejected Amazon’s license defense. While the court awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, it denied the patentee’s request for enhanced damages, concluding that the conduct, although willful, did not rise to the level of egregious misconduct required under governing precedent (Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2026)).

Lawsuit. Acceleration Bay, LLC (Acceleration Bay), a patent licensing company that acquired networking technology patents originally developed by The Boeing Company, brought the action against Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS), a global cloud computing provider offering infrastructure and content delivery services. The dispute arose from AWS’s operation of its CloudFront content delivery network and Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) services, which Acceleration Bay alleged used patented network communication technologies.

The asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,714,966 (the ’966 patent) and 6,732,147 (the ’147 patent) relate to computer networking technologies involving virtual overlay networks that enable efficient data transmission using “broadcast channels” and “m-regular” network structures, including mechanisms for maintaining and “healing” network connections.

Acceleration Bay filed suit in July 2022, alleging that AWS’s CloudFront and VPC products infringed the asserted patents. The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial, where Acceleration Bay argued that AWS’s systems, particularly through technologies such as BigMac and VPC Peering, implemented the patented network structures and communication methods. AWS denied infringement, asserted invalidity defenses, and raised a license defense based on a 2010 agreement with Boeing.

The jury found that CloudFront infringed both asserted claims and that such infringement was willful. It further found that VPC also infringed the asserted claims and rejected AWS’s license defense. The jury awarded $30.5 million in damages. Following the verdict, AWS moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, challenging infringement, damages, willfulness, and the rejection of its license defense. Acceleration Bay, in turn, sought enhanced damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest.

Infringement. The court denied AWS’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on infringement, holding that a reasonable jury could find that the accused products satisfied all claim limitations. Applying the standard articulated in Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the court emphasized that a verdict must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. It found that Acceleration Bay’s expert testimony, technical documentation, and source code evidence sufficiently demonstrated that CloudFront and VPC implemented the claimed “broadcast channel,” “m-regular,” and “healing” limitations.

The court rejected AWS’s arguments that Acceleration Bay had abandoned or improperly introduced infringement theories at trial, noting that AWS failed to preserve many of its evidentiary objections. It reiterated that issues of conflicting evidence and credibility are for the jury, not the court.

Validity and license defense. The court upheld the jury’s rejection of AWS’s invalidity defenses, observing that the defendant had either withdrawn or failed to substantiate key theories, including anticipation and obviousness. It also denied AWS’s license defense based on the 2010 Boeing-Amazon agreement. The court held that AWS failed to prove that Boeing itself, rather than its affiliates, used the accused services in a manner sufficient to trigger the license. The jury was entitled to discount AWS’s evidence, including testimony and internal records, particularly where ambiguities existed regarding the scope and nature of prior use.

Damages. The court sustained the $30.5 million damages award, rejecting AWS’s arguments that Acceleration Bay failed to apportion damages properly. It found that the patentee’s expert reasonably limited the royalty base to infringing uses of CloudFront and VPC data transfer functionalities.

Relying on Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the court emphasized that disagreements between competing experts do not render a damages theory unreliable. Instead, such disputes are properly resolved by the jury. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably credit Acceleration Bay’s damages model, which was supported by financial data, technical analysis, and apportionment methodologies tied to the infringing features.

Willfulness. The court also upheld the jury’s finding of willful infringement. Citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 14 F.4th 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2021), it reiterated that willfulness requires deliberate or reckless disregard of patent rights. The court found sufficient evidence that AWS had notice of the patents through a 2019 letter but failed to investigate or respond meaningfully. Testimony showed that AWS did not consult engineers, seek legal opinions, or engage with the patentee after receiving the notice. Although the court described the evidence as “thin,” it concluded that a reasonable jury could find that AWS acted with reckless disregard.

New trial. The court denied AWS’s alternative motion for a new trial, finding no miscarriage of justice. It held that AWS largely repeated its arguments for judgment as a matter of law without satisfying the distinct standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Citing Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33 (1980), the court noted that granting a new trial requires a showing that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or results in injustice—standards AWS failed to meet.

Enhanced damages. Despite affirming willfulness, the court denied Acceleration Bay’s request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Applying the framework from Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), the court held that enhanced damages are reserved for egregious cases of misconduct.

While certain factors, such as AWS’s size and duration of infringement, favored enhancement, the court found no evidence of deliberate copying, concealment, or litigation misconduct. On balance, the conduct did not rise above that of a “typical infringement case,” and therefore did not warrant punitive enhancement.

Interest. The court granted Acceleration Bay’s request for prejudgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterly, from the date of the damages period. It rejected AWS’s argument that the delay in filing suit justified limiting interest, holding that AWS failed to show actual prejudice. The court also awarded post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, to be calculated from the date of judgment and applied to all awarded amounts.

Outcome. Finally, the court denied AWS’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, thereby upholding the jury’s findings of infringement, willfulness, and the $30.5 million damages award. It rejected the license defense and confirmed the validity of the asserted patents. Further, the court denied enhanced damages but granted prejudgment and post-judgment interest, leaving the jury’s monetary award intact without punitive enhancement.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF.

Judge: Andrews, R.

Attorneys: Philip A. Rovner (Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP) for Acceleration Bay, LLC. Jennifer Ying (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Companies: Acceleration Bay, LLC; Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet DelawareNews