Judge Alan Albright found willful infringement and enhanced the jury’s verdict from $13.8M to over $21M.
We have reported on the IP case of Super Lighting’s claim against CH Lighting, Shaoxing Ruising Lighting, and Elliott Electric Supply. On 4 NOV 2021, the Jury rendered a unanimous verdict finding that Defendants infringed all asserted claims and that Defendants failed to prove that any asserted claim was invalid. The Jury awarded damages in the amount of $13,872,872 from CH and Ruising and $298,454 from Elliott and further found that CH and Ruising willfully infringed.
On 29 JUL 2022, Judge Alan Albright issued an order of judgement in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division in favor of Super Lighting against CH Lighting Technology, Shaoxing Ruising Lighting and Elliott Electric Supply.
More importantly, the court also determined that CH’s infringement was willful; and CH is ordered to pay for damages in the amount of $21,214,708, an amount that is the sum of:
- The jury’s verdict in an amount of $13,872,872
- $7,155,432 in enhanced damages, reflecting an award of $0.45 per unit for all infringing products sold between the date CH learned of the ’140 patent, February 16, 2019, and the date when CH filed its answer, December 3, 2020; and
- Prejudgment interest in an amount of $186,404
Below are highlights from the judgement.
- The court believes competition between Super Lighting and CH is fierce.
- Competition drove CH to poach Jack Jiang from Super Lighting by offering “unusually large benefits”—a rent-free house, a free office, and the power to run Ruising.
- CH produced Super Lighting’s confidential documents—testing reports—relating to lamp tubes. CH never explained why it had those documents. All it could say was that some of them were dated after Jack Jiang and Jun Yang arrived at CH.
- CH could not explain away Jack Jiang’s possession of Super Lighting’s customer lists.
- All this leads to a conclusion that CH and Super Lighting were rivals, potentially even “archrivals,” and indicates CH did have a motivation to harm Super Lighting.
- The Court finds that this case is egregious and therefore enhancement is warranted.
- The Court finds that doubling the damages award is adequate punishment for the level of culpability CH and Ruising have shown.
The judge has not ruled on the damage for the infringement occurring after the jury verdict. CH and Elliott will likely be liable for more damages because of their continuing infringement.
Developing….
Below are the infringed patents:
- IT IS ORDERED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of Super Lighting against CH and Elliott with respect to the infringement of claims 1, 4, 5, 24, 28 and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 9,939,140 (the “’140 patent”), claims 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,352,540 (the “’540 patent”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,295,125 (the “’125 patent”)
- IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of Super Lighting against CH and Elliott that claims 1, 4, 5, 24, 28 and 31 of the ’140 patent, claims 13 and 14 of the ’540 patent, and claim 1 of the ’125 patent are not proved invalid