MARSHALL – The Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas has set the ongoing royalty rate for a $20 million judgment against Google from a patent infringement case decided in February.
The court ordered that the rate should be $0.002601 per Chrome user per month.
"Plaintiffs seek imposition of an ongoing royalty for any continued infringement by defendant Google Inc. ('Google'), as well as a corresponding reporting requirement. Having considered the motion, the parties’ briefing, and the relevant authorities, the court is of the opinion that the Motion should be granted as modified," according to the Sept. 12 memorandum opinion.
Plaintiffs Alfonso Cioffi, Melanie Rozman, Megan Rozman and Morgan Rozman, were awarded compensation and damages from Google Inc. totaling in $20 million in running royalty.
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap wrote that the court “determined that the ongoing royalty rate should be consistent with the jury’s implied royalty rate in this case, the court finds that plaintiffs’ motion for ongoing royalty should be granted as modified,” according to the Sept. 12 memorandum opinion and order regarding ongoing royalty and supplemental damages.
The plaintiffs filed a suit against Google in 2013 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that Google Chrome web browser infringed on four patents. They argued that Google Chrome’s web browsing process and files were very similar to the re-issued patent. The patents-at-issue described computer processes, in-depth descriptions of the software, and potential malware prevention.
The Eastern District court determined that Google did not infringe on the four patents claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs soon filed for appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeals court reversed and remanded the case, citing that the trial court incorrectly defined the web-browsing process, and saw there was reason for the alleged similarities. The case was then remanded to a new trial, which is where the jury ultimately ruled in favor of Cioffi and the Rozmans.