Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al, No. 2:15-cv-01047 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2017)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:15-cv-01047, Dkt. No. 354
Decided
January 25, 2017
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, denyinig 317 SEALED MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Arthrex, Inc
Length
3 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

This patent infringement action proceeded to jury trial on December 2, 2016. At the conclusion of the five-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict finding that Defendants Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthoCare Corp. willfully infringed claims 10 and 11 of United States Patent No. 8,821,541, and claims 4, 8, 16, and 27 of United States Patent No. 9,179,907, and that the asserted claims are not invalid. See Dkt. No. 299. The jury awarded Arthrex, Inc. $17,400,000.00 as a reasonable royalty. Id. Arthrex now moves for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Dkt.