IP Law Daily, PATENT—D.N.J.: LG’s request for new trial denied in patent dispute with Mondis, (Jun 6, 2023)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

LG failed to persuade the court that the re-trial damages verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.

A New Jersey district court denied LG Electronics’ request for a new trial in its patent dispute over smart TV technology with Mondis Technology Ltd., in which a jury had awarded Mondis $14.3 million in compensatory damages. The court concluded that LG had failed to persuade the court that the re-trial damages verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court also denied Mondis’ motion for enhanced damages and attorney fees, finding that Mondis had not proved that LG had engaged in “egregious misconduct.” The court awarded Mondis prejudgment interest, but only from the date it filed the case, as LG argued that Mondis had delayed filing its lawsuit for five years (Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc., June 1, 2023, Chesler, S.).

The case arose from a dispute between Mondis, owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180 (the “’180 patent”), and LG, a television manufacturer, over allegations that LG manufactured and sold televisions that infringed claims 14 and 15 of the ’180 patent. The ‘180 patent covers plug-and-play technology for smart televisions. A jury found that LG had infringed Mondis's patents related to OLED display technology and awarded Mondis $14 million in damages. LG appealed the verdict, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the verdict.

LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur. LG had filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur. However, the court denied LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), a new trial under Rule 59, and/or remittitur regarding damages, finding that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying LG's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, the court deterred that LG had offered “no arguments of any substance that the great weight of the evidence cuts against the verdict or that a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand.” The court stressed that the jury’s damages verdict was limited by the evidence, not by the opinions of the experts and that “LG has failed to persuade the Court that the re-trial damages verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence.”

Motion for enhanced damages. Mondis filed a motion requesting enhanced damages and attorney fees. The court noted that the issue to analyze was whether Mondis had demonstrated that LG engaged in “egregious misconduct beyond typical infringement,” in order to award enhanced damages.

Mondis argued that the court apply the Read factors, and that Mondis could demonstrate the first factor, copying, as the jury determined that LG willfully infringed the claims at issue. Mondis contended that this clearly demonstrates that LG copied its designs. The court analyzed the arguments using the Read factors for enhanced damages, and concluded that “even if Mondis had persuaded the Court that LG’s post-infringement litigation conduct should be considered “infringement behavior,” the Court does not agree that LG’s conduct during litigation was egregious, and concluded that Mondis’s arguments under the Read approach “hardly makes a compelling case for enhanced damages.”

The court also analyzed the motion using the more generalized Halo approach and concluded that Mondis had failed to demonstrate that enhanced damages were warranted. Under the Halo approach, the Supreme Court determined, “awards of enhanced damages under the Patent Act over the past 180 years establish that they are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” The court concluded that there was not enough evidence to support a finding that LG’s infringement conduct was egregious, within the meaning of Halo: “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” The court denied Mondis’s motion for enhanced damages and attorney fees.

Motion for prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Mondis also requested roughly $8 million in prejudgment interest on the damages award. LG argued that Mondis was not entitled to prejudgment interest because Mondis was not diligent in prosecuting the case. The court agreed with LG and noted that Mondis accused LG of infringing the ’180 patent with its televisions in 2009, but did not file suit until 2014, after the patent had expired. As such, the court determined that it was justified in reducing the award of prejudgment interest because of the 5-year delay in filing. The court awarded Mondis prejudgment interest running from the day it filed the case, not the date of the initial infringement.

The Case is No. 2:15-cv-04431-SRC-CLW.

Attorneys: Martin Jay Black (Dechert LLP) for Mondis Technology Ltd. Liza M. Walsh (Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP) for LG Electronics Inc.

Companies: Mondis Technology Ltd.; LG Electronics Inc.

Cases: Patent NewJerseyNews