You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.

Citations: 986 F. Supp. 2d 574; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135208; 2013 WL 5332108Docket: Civil Action No. 09-290

Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania; September 23, 2013; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Marvell Technology Group and Marvell Semiconductor, alleging infringement of two patents concerning high-density magnetic recording sequence detection. CMU claimed the infringement was willful, while Marvell contested the validity of the patents. Following a four-week trial, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of CMU, affirming the patents' validity, finding Marvell's infringement willful, and awarding CMU $1,169,140,271 in damages based on a reasonable royalty calculation. Post-trial, both parties filed various motions, including Marvell's request for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, which were denied by the court. The court upheld the jury's findings of infringement, validity, and willfulness, determining that Marvell had actual knowledge of the patents and lacked a reasonable defense. The court also addressed procedural matters, including the consideration of post-trial motions and the standards for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, ultimately supporting the jury's substantial damages award for CMU.

Legal Issues Addressed

Damages and Reasonable Royalty

Application: CMU was awarded $1,169,140,271 in damages based on a reasonable royalty calculation of $0.50 per chip sold.

Reasoning: The jury found in favor of CMU on all claims, awarding $1,169,140,271 in damages, which aligns with the expert testimony of Ms. Lawton, who proposed a reasonable royalty of $0.50 per chip sold by Marvell.

Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial

Application: The court denied Marvell's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial concerning both non-damages and damages issues.

Reasoning: The Court has denied Marvell's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial concerning both non-damages and damages issues.

Patent Infringement under U.S. Patent Law

Application: Carnegie Mellon University claimed Marvell Technology Group and Marvell Semiconductor infringed on two patents related to high-density magnetic recording sequence detection.

Reasoning: CMU alleged that Marvell infringed Claim 4 of the '839 Patent and Claim 2 of the '180 Patent through its chips and simulators.

Validity of Patents under U.S. Patent Law

Application: The jury found that Marvell did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the patents were anticipated by prior art or obvious.

Reasoning: The jury ruled against Marvell's invalidity claims, stating it did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the patents were anticipated by prior art or obvious.

Willful Infringement

Application: The jury concluded that Marvell knew or should have known its actions infringed the patents, supporting a finding of willful infringement.

Reasoning: The jury found that Marvell had actual knowledge of the patents before the lawsuit and did not possess a reasonable defense against CMU's claim, ultimately concluding that Marvell knew or should have known its actions infringed the patents.