WD Escapes Half a Billion in Patent Damages as Judge Trims Award To $1 (theregister.com) 9
Western Digital has succeeded in having the sum it owed from a patent infringement case reduced from $553 million down to just $1 in post-trial motions, when the judge found the plaintiff's claims had shifted during the course of the litigation. From a report: The storage biz was held by a California jury to have infringed on data encryption patents owned by SPEX Technologies Inc in October, relating to several of its self-encrypting hard drive products.
WD was initially told to pay $316 million in damages, but District Judge James Selna ruled the company owed a further $237 million in interest charges earlier this year, bringing the total to more than half a billion dollars. In February, WD was given a week to file a bond or stump up the entire damages payment. Selna granted Western Digital's post-trial motion to reduce damages, writing that "SPEX's damages theory changed as certain evidence and theories became unavailable" and there was "insufficient evidence from which the Court could determine a reasonable royalty."
WD was initially told to pay $316 million in damages, but District Judge James Selna ruled the company owed a further $237 million in interest charges earlier this year, bringing the total to more than half a billion dollars. In February, WD was given a week to file a bond or stump up the entire damages payment. Selna granted Western Digital's post-trial motion to reduce damages, writing that "SPEX's damages theory changed as certain evidence and theories became unavailable" and there was "insufficient evidence from which the Court could determine a reasonable royalty."
Good (Score:4)
Fuck patent trolls.
Bwah haha (Score:3)
Imagine spending all that money on litigation, and the court finds in your favor, and then awards you a dollar.
Re:Bwah haha (Score:5, Funny)
Now they know how it feels to get a 23 cent check in the mail when a class action lawsuit wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Still means they can recover litigation costs since they won.
Re: Bwah haha (Score:1)
You mean they can try
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but if the judge thinks its just some shit-ass nonsense suit, like he seems to, technically true, but stupid on its merits, he may well be inclined to deny costs to spank the plantiff for wasting the courts time.
Interesting backhand by the court... (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but it seems like it shows that the plaintiff won... so they can say they found the other party culpable... but for $1. I'm guessing if the case was tossed out of court, even with prejudice, it likely would have been appealed or re-filed, so this helps ensure it has no real grounds for appeal?
At least WD is thinking about encryption. FDE is a critical thing these days, although I trust software FDE (LUKS, ZFS) more than I do hardware.
Re:Interesting backhand by the court... (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, but it seems like it shows that the plaintiff won... so they can say they found the other party culpable... but for $1. I'm guessing if the case was tossed out of court, even with prejudice, it likely would have been appealed or re-filed, so this helps ensure it has no real grounds for appeal?
At least WD is thinking about encryption. FDE is a critical thing these days, although I trust software FDE (LUKS, ZFS) more than I do hardware.
I doubt this can't be appealed. It's more do to with the fact that they couldn't show they suffered any damages (harm) from the infringement:
He cited [PDF] precedents where an award of damages was deemed unnecessary if the plaintiff could not "adequately tie a dollar amount" to the infringing acts.
"Accordingly, the Court enters nominal damages in the amount of $1," he stated.
For this reason, the portion of WD's Rule 59 Motion regarding damages was declared moot, while the request for a new trial was denied.
Despite the judge denying almost all of the storage firm's post-trial motions, its legal representatives Gibson Dunn claimed the reduction of damages "a significant win."
[...]
He cited [PDF] precedents where an award of damages was deemed unnecessary if the plaintiff could not "adequately tie a dollar amount" to the infringing acts.
"Accordingly, the Court enters nominal damages in the amount of $1," he stated.
For this reason, the portion of WD's Rule 59 Motion regarding damages was declared moot, while the request for a new trial was denied.
Despite the judge denying almost all of the storage firm's post-trial motions, its legal representatives Gibson Dunn claimed the reduction of damages "a significant win."
"Prior to trial, Western Digital made a successful motion to exclude SPEX's damages expert. SPEX then tried the case and attempted to put on a damages case without a damages expert. Based on damages theories that were never disclosed, and legally improper, the jury awarded SPEX over $250 million in damages," Gibson Dunn claimed in a statement sent to The Register.
So WD did infringe, but I guess because they were just a patent troll with no actual business they couldn't actually show they suffered any damages.
Not sure why they couldn't claim lost licensing revenue, maybe the rule was really made to combat patent trolls and it worked as intended?
magnets yo (Score:2)
"certain evidence and theories became unavailable"
Sounds like some of Western Digital's design documents got degaussed "accidentally"