IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Judgment affirmed in DC-to-DC converter dispute, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A trial court properly denied a post-trial request for judgment as a matter of law because the jury verdict finding indirect and willful infringement was supported by substantial evidence and the decision to credit that evidence was within the role of the jury.

A seller of electronic components failed to show any error in a trial court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and in an award of attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The jury had heard substantial evidence of induced and willful infringement which it was within its rights to credit (Synqor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp., No. 24-1879 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026)).

SynQor, Inc. (SynQor) was the owner of several patents relating to DC-to-DC converters used in electronics, for which it brought infringement allegations against Vicor Corporation (Vicor). A jury found that Vicor’s sales of converter products indirectly and willfully infringed claims 55 and 67 of U.S. Patent No. 7,564,702 (the ’702 patent), awarding damages of $6.5 million. After trial, Vicor moved for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement, which the trial court denied. SynQor then moved for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages, which the trial court granted. Vicor appealed.

Induced and willful infringement. Vicor argued that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find induced infringement or willful infringement and that the trial court conflated the scienter requirements for each. The court found that the jury had heard, and was entitled to believe, substantial evidence that Vicor had monitored and reverse-engineered SynQor’s patent marked products, that it was aware of SynQor’s position that its products infringed, and that it chose to indemnify a customer rather than provide a legal opinion that its products did not infringe SynQor’s patent. Much of the same evidence supported the jury’s determination that the infringement was willful, and the unobjected-to jury instructions properly stated the distinct standards for induced versus willful infringement.

Attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. The trial court had awarded attorneys’ fees to SynQor based on findings that Vicor’s litigation position was exceptionally weak and its tactics in bad faith, noting Vicor’s re-litigation of claim construction after the court had made its ruling, and also noting its weak equitable claims, and gamesmanship at trial. As to enhanced damages, the trial court had made a detailed analysis of the Read factors and found that Vicor’s infringement was longstanding and, at least as to certain accused products, Vicor lacked a good-faith belief in non-infringement.

The court affirmed the decision below.

The Case is No. 24-1879.

Judge: Freeman, L.

Attorneys: Steven J. Horowitz (Sidley Austin LLP) for Synqor, Inc. John Bash (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for Vicor Corp.

Companies: Synqor, Inc.; Vicor Corp.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews