Judge Gilstrap orders Chi Mei to pay Eidos Display $8.2M in patent lawsuit

By Erianne Leatherman | Mar 13, 2018

TYLER – A federal judge has ruled that Chi Mei Innolux Corp. must pay Eidos Display LLC and Eidos III LLC a combined $8.2 million in a settlement over alleged infringing of a patent dealing with LCD displays.

On March 5, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas ruled that “plaintiffs’ motion for enhanced damages is granted-as-modified, such that the appropriate enhancement in this case is $4.1 million, in addition to the $4.1 million awarded by the jury,” according to the memorandum opinion and order. 

“Considering Innolux’s conduct under these circumstances, the court finds that an  enhancement of $4.1 million, in addition to the $4.1 million awarded by  the jury, is appropriate in this case,” the opinion states.

Plaintiff Eidos Display filed suit against Chi Mei Innolux Corp. on April 25, 2011, alleging that Chi Mei infringed U.S. patent No. 5,879,958, as known as the ‘958 patent.

According to March 5 final judgment, “A jury trial commenced in this case on June 26, 2017, and on June 30, 2017, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that Innolux willfully infringed the ’958 patent, that Innolux failed to prove claim 1 of the ’958 patent is invalid, and that plaintiffs were entitled to $4,100,000 in compensatory damages.”

Following the verdict, the plaintiffs filed a motion for enhanced damages, a motion for attorney’s fees, a motion for pre- and post-judgment interest, and a motion for clarification and entry of judgment, the opinion states.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and claim for indirect infringement because Eidos could not “reliably establish any measure of damages related to its indirect infringement claim,” the opinion states.

According to the opinion, “Even viewing Innolux’s alleged indirect infringement, in the past, as an injury in and of itself, there is no remedy the court can provide for such injury at this point absent a reliable measure of past damages. The ’958 patent is expired. So, there is no ongoing infringement the court can enjoin. There is no other ongoing reputational, business, dignitary, or property interest the court can protect. There is simply no ongoing injury. The injury, if any, has already occurred, and yet plaintiffs have failed to point to any reliable evidence that would support an award of damages to compensate for that injury.”

Want to get notified whenever we write about Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas

More News

The Record Network