The court affirmed the jury’s verdict of infringement, no invalidity, and an award of $15 million in “lump sum” damages. First, the court affirmed the district court’s claim constructions, holding that it was not error to reject Samsung’s argument that the “being provided to” language of the claim requires that certain parameters must be provided during the operation of the method. Second, the court held that there was substantial evidence on which the jury could rely to have found infringement. Third, the court held that the jury verdict of no invalidity for anticipation was supported by substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony. Fourth, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of Samsung’s Daubert motion to exclude Summit 6’s damages expert’s testimony. The expert opined that the profit of the infringing feature could be determined by determining the price paid for the feature and reducing that amount by the percentage of users who used that feature in the infringing manner (determined by surveys), determining the profit obtained from that use, and then splitting the profit evenly, as the parties had even bargaining power and there was no evidence of non-infringing alternatives. The court held that the expert’s testimony was admissible because it was based on reliable principles and was sufficiently tied to the facts of the case and any flaws in his opinions would go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Lastly, the court held that the jury’s award of $15 million was supported by substantial evidence in the form of a comparable license to RIM. Lastly, the court held that the $15 million damages amount, which the jury stated was a “lump sum,” included royalties for future sales, because such a verdict was permitted and it was consistent with expert testimony on “lump sums.”
Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 2013-1648, -1651 (September 21, 2015); Opinion by: Reyna, joined by Prost and Hughes; Appealed From: District Court for the Northern District of Texas, O’Connor, J. Read the full opinion here.
