Yesterday, this blog witnessed a sudden surge in search-engine referrals for Ericsson v. TCL. Our earlier posts on this matter are located here and here. A summary of the damages issues is newly-provided by the court:
In an unexpected turn of events, Judge Payne has reconsidered his decision to vacate the jury verdict and has reinstated the previous award.
The crux of Judge Payne’s reversal hinges on his reconsideration of whether “the Daubert filter” was called for in this matter. Previously, he had concluded that it was; in his reversal, however, he decides instead that trial afforded sufficient opportunity to defendant to address issues of evidentiary weight.
With regard to the prior conclusion that future products – neither existing nor practicing – were improperly “accused” and thereby improperly made subject to damages, the indeterminate nature of a jury’s decision making now affords the plaintiff its award:
Judge Payne not only affirmed the jury’s verdict of $75 million, but he made the award subject to a $25 million enhancement.
His lengthy discussion of “willfullness” provides useful background to the topic and includes the pithy observation that, “One juror’s ‘malicious’ conduct might be another’s benign competitive business activity.” Finally, Judge Payne concludes:
We admit that we did not foresee Judge Payne’s reconsideration; we suspect TCL is even more surprised. Yesterday’s developments make a “Part 4” seemingly inevitable.