IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Jury’s $659,106 damages award against Asus Computer affirmed, (Dec 20, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

Asus’s argument that damages were calculated based on non-accused products was rejected because Asus was the one that had provided the list of products.

Computer manufacturer Asus failed to show any error in a jury verdict and damages award against it for patent infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The jury had properly relied on evidence that Asus itself had provided or that its own experts had used without objection (Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. Asus Computer International, No. 22-1769 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2024)).

Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC (Lone Star) brought suit against Asus Computer International and AsusTek Computer, Inc. (collectively, Asus) for induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435 (the ’435 patent). A jury found the asserted claims were infringed and were not proven to be invalid and awarded damages of $825,000.00. After the trial court ordered a new trial on damages, this was changed to $659,106.40. The trial court denied Asus’s motions for judgment as a matter of law. Asus appealed.

Jurisdiction. Asus argued that Lone Star lacked standing because it failed to produce written evidence that it was the owner of the ’435 patent. To the extent this was a statutory standing argument, it was forfeited because it was not raised at the time of the Joint Pretrial Order. To the extent that this was a non-waivable Article III standing argument, the Federal Circuit found that uncontroverted testimony of Lone Star’s witness as to patent ownership was sufficient to establish standing.

Extent of use. Asus argued that the damages award should be reduced or vacated because there was no evidence of the extent of use of the infringing feature. The court pointed out Asus’s own expert’s testimony showing survey results indicating 16.2% of respondents practiced the claimed method using Asus’s products.

Non-accused products. Asus argued that the damage award included damages for non-accused products. The Federal Circuit pointed out that both parties’ experts used the same spreadsheet of sales to calculate damages, which was produced by Asus itself during discovery; therefore, the parties did not dispute the products which should be part of the damages calculation.

Claim construction. Asus argued that the trial court construed the term “individual color” inconsistently within the claims. The court found that the trial court had construed this term only once, so it could not have been inconsistent. In any event, the trial court had used Asus’s own proposed construction.

Substantial evidence. Asus’s argument that substantial evidence did not support an infringement finding as to one particular claim limitation was forfeited because it was not raised before the trial court. As to induced infringement, Asus argued that the evidence of underlying direct infringement was only circumstantial, but the Federal Circuit explained that evidence such as advertisements and user manuals directed to a class of users was sufficient to support a finding of induced infringement even without direct proof that any particular user actually infringed.

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The Case is Nos. 22-1769 and 22-2261.

Judge: Chen, R.

Attorneys: Jennifer Ishimoto (Banie & Ishimoto LLP) for Lone Star Technological Innovations. VINAY VIJAY JOSHI (Amin Turocy & Watson, LLP) for Asus Computer International and AsusTek Computer, Inc.

Companies: Lone Star Technological Innovations; Asus Computer International; AsusTek Computer, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews TexasNews