United States District Court, D. Delaware
before me is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration on
Enhancement of Damages. (D.I. 332). The Parties have fully
briefed the issues. (D.I. 333, 337, 343). Because I did not
previously appreciate the differences between the related
U.S. and European patents, I will GRANT
Parties are familiar with the facts of this case. The subject
of the present motion is whether I erred by inferring that
Defendant had a good faith belief in the invalidity of U.S.
Pat. No. 9, 059, 532 ('"532 Patent") based on
Defendant's invalidity challenge to the '532
Patent's European counterpart. Because my inference was
erroneous, I must also consider what impact, if any, that
error has on my decision not to enhance damages.
purpose of a motion for reargument or reconsideration is to
"correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe
ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
611 (3d Cir. 1999). "[M]otions for reconsideration
'should not be used to rehash arguments already
briefed.'" BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Sun Oil
Co., 200 F.Supp.2d 429, 432 (D. Del. 2002) (quoting
Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 293, 295
(D. Del. 1998)). To succeed on a motion for reconsideration,
a party must demonstrate one of the following: "(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence that was not available when the
court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear
error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice."
Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677.
Patent Act gives the Court discretion to "increase the
damages up to three times the amount found or assessed."
35 U.S.C. § 284. The Court's discretion "should
be exercised in light of the considerations underlying the
grant of that discretion." Halo Elecs., Inc. v.
Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1926 (2016).
Enhanced damages are "designed as a 'punitive'
or 'vindictive' sanction for egregious infringement
behavior," which is "willful, wanton, malicious,
bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrong, flagrant,
or-indeed-characteristic of a pirate." Id. at
1932. Enhanced damages are "not to be meted out in a
typical infringement case." Id. A jury's
finding of willful infringement is a prerequisite to
enhancement of damages but is not by itself sufficient.
an infringer's behavior is willful, the Court may
evaluate a set of "non-exclusive" factors set forth
in Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., to determine if
damages should be enhanced and the extent to which they
should be enhanced. 970 F.2d 816, 826-27 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics
Corp., 875 F.3d 1369, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The
Read factors include:
(1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or
design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when he knew of
the other's patent protection, investigated the scope of
the patent and formed a good-faith belief that it was invalid
or that it was not infringed; (3) the infringer's
behavior as a party to the litigation; (4) defendant's
size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the case; (6)
duration of defendant's misconduct; (7) remedial action
by the defendant; (8) defendant's motivation for harm;
and (9) whether defendant attempted to conceal its
Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336,
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Read Corp., 970 F.2d
movant must establish its entitlement to enhanced damages
under Section 284 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Halo, 136 S.Ct. at 1934.
Significance of Defendant's Challenge to the European
Counterpart of the '532 Patent
Memorandum Opinion, which addressed the Parties'
post-trial motions, I considered the Read factors to
determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages.
(D.I. 329 at 7-13). Plaintiff has identified an issue with my
analysis of the second Read factor which considers
Defendant's good faith belief in invalidity. 970 F.2d at
827. When deciding whether Defendant had a good faith belief
that the '532 Patent was invalid I noted (1)
Defendant's failure to present evidence of a good faith
belief of invalidity during the jury trial, and (2)
Defendant's introduction of evidence during the
inequitable conduct trial of its pre-issuance challenge to
the European counterpart to the '532 Patent. (D.I. 329 at
8). I concluded, "[E]ven though Defendant knew that it
was copying the commercial embodiment of the ...