In this post-trial order, the judge denies plaintiff’s request for ongoing royalties because the $8 million awarded by the jury was intended to cover both past and future infringement. Defendant Apple’s expert had testified thatthe parties would have negotiated a lump sum “freedom-to-operate” license that was fully paid up for any future use. Further, the jury verdict form allowed the jury to choose a lump sum royalty to cover “all past and future sales of Apple products.”
The court finds that defendants failed to raise any timely objections, and instead “hid behind the log, choosing to point out the wording of various instructions only after the verdict was returned.”
A court ruling that a lump sum award precludes future royalties is of course nothing new, which makes one wonder what distinctions Personal Audio might have drawn for this case. From the judge’s decision, it’s not exactly clear.
Case: Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et. al., 9-09-cv-00111 (ED TX, August 22, 2011, Order) (Clark).