Brattle’s Intellectual Property Practice: Highlights from 2024

The past year was an eventful one for Brattle’s Intellectual Property (IP) practice! Our team has been busy with matters before the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and US district courts, and beyond our casework, we’ve authored industry papers. We are honored to have contributed to several important and interesting matters in 2024 and would like to thank our clients for partnering with Brattle.

Read on to learn about highlights from our practice’s work last year. We look forward to collaborating with you in 2025!

Case Highlights from 2024

ITC

Principal Dr. Pallavi Seth testified on behalf of Vicor Corporation before the ITC in a patent infringement matter. The case centered on Vicor’s allegations that imports of certain power converter modules – used in data center servers, artificial intelligence and cloud computing systems, and processing units – by various Delta, Quanta, Foxconn, and Ingrasys entities infringed three of Vicor’s US patents. Dr. Seth’s expert report and testimony examined domestic industry investments by Vicor. ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot cited Dr. Seth’s testimony extensively in his Initial Determination and, affirming that Vicor had an economic domestic industry for each asserted patent, concluded that the respondents infringed two of the three Vicor patents. In addition, ALJ Elliot relied directly on Dr. Seth’s analysis and testimony to recommend a bond amount during the 60-day presidential review period.

Dr. Seth also provided both deposition and trial testimony in an ITC matter involving patents related to vaping technology. Using statistical studies to estimate the impact of a potential exclusion order – one that would ban certain JUUL vaping devices – on the US public interest, her expert report focused on consumer behavior and switching costs associated with the lack of non-fringing alternatives to the JUUL vaping devices and estimated a significant rise in the consumption of combustible cigarettes.

Principal Dr. Coleman Bazelon testified on behalf of Motorola Mobility in an ITC patent infringement matter involving certain 5G cellular base station products imported and deployed in the US by Ericsson. Supported by a Brattle team led by Dr. Seth, Dr. Bazelon submitted expert reports and testified at deposition and trial on the impact of an exclusion order covering certain Ericsson 5G base stations on the US public interest. Employing his extensive telecommunications industry expertise, Dr. Bazelon estimated the economic switching costs of replacing 5G base station equipment, the capacity for 5G services under spectrum that is currently deployed, and the availability of capacity mitigation strategies and technologies.

On behalf of Samsung Display, Dr. Bazelon also testified in an ITC patent infringement matter involving organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) – used to make screens for televisions, computer monitors, and personal devices – imported for sale into the US by various respondents. A Brattle team led by Dr. Seth supported Dr. Bazelon, who submitted expert reports and testified at deposition and trial regarding the impact of an exclusion order on certain OLED replacement screen products on the US public interest. In his testimony, Dr. Bazelon analyzed survey evidence on consumer preferences for original equipment manufacturer screens (OEMs) replacements over third-party replacement screens, the existence of manufacturing capacity on behalf of the complainant, and the economic costs and benefits of intellectual property protections.

District Court

Principal Emeritus Dr. Kevin Neels testified on behalf of Samsung in their successful defense in a $4 billion patent infringement lawsuit over semiconductor manufacturing patents. In Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, plaintiff Demaray – seeking more than $4 billion in damages – alleged that Samsung infringed its patents by employing reactors, supplied by a third party, in the manufacture of its memory and processor products. A Brattle team led by Dr. Seth and Associate Dr. Marianne Bernatzky supported Dr. Neels, who submitted an expert report on behalf of Samsung and testified at deposition and trial on reasonable royalty issues. Brattle showed that the plaintiff’s approach incorrectly employed a hedonic regression method to calculate damages. The jury cleared Samsung of liability.

Dr. Seth provided damages analysis and trial testimony on behalf of Wirtgen, a subsidiary of Deere & Company, in the US District Court for the District of Delaware in a matter concerning infringement by Caterpillar of several of Wirtgen’s patents related to cold milling technology. The Brattle team was led by Dr. Seth, Dr. Bazelon, and Senior Associate Dr. Jonathan Lee. Dr. Seth filed expert reports, provided deposition testimony, and testified before a jury regarding reasonable royalty damages incurred by Wirtgen, and her report employed several rigorous economic techniques – including using patent forward citation analysis and a bargaining model – to quantify the impact of Caterpillar’s infringement of Wirtgen’s patents. The jury found that Caterpillar willfully infringed five of the six patents in question, and Wirtgen was awarded damages of $12.9 million; after the company sought additional relief, a district court judge upheld the jury’s decision but enhanced the amount awarded to Wirtgen to $19.5 million, falling in the range of damages offered by Dr. Seth. Relying on Dr. Seth’s market analysis, the judge additionally found that Wirtgen suffered irreparable harm from Caterpillar’s infringement that could not be compensated monetarily and thus granted Wirtgen’s request for a permanent injunction – rare in patent cases – blocking the sale of Caterpillar’s infringing machines.

Principal Laurence Freed provided damages testimony for the defendant in a trade secret and breach of contract matter in a US District Court for the Central District of California matter involving advertising analytics software. His testimony rebutted a nearly $100 million damages claim for lost profits and unjust enrichment. Supported by Dr. Lee, Mr. Freed concluded that the plaintiff’s expert was unable to define a defensible but-for scenario that would allow for a quantification of lost profits or unjust enrichment with reasonable certainty. Mr. Freed instead presented a reasonable royalty damages estimate that was consistent with available data.

Principal Dr. Chi Cheng testified on behalf of a major US retailer in a patent infringement matter before the US District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff alleged that the retailer infringed on their design patent for certain products. Engaged by counsel for the retailer, Dr. Cheng analyzed and offered opinions on the appropriate expenses to include in calculating the total profits generated from sales of the products allegedly infringing the patent. The plaintiff sought approximately $4 million in damages. Dr. Cheng submitted two expert reports on behalf of the retailer, which contributed to the court granting summary judgment in favor of the retailer.

Publications

Senior Associate Dr. Animesh Giri and Research Associate April Dang coauthored and published two related articles in the ABA’s Landslide Magazine and Business Law Today that explore the potential impact of the proposed ban on noncompetes on trade secret caseloads. By analyzing state-level variations in noncompete regulations over time alongside annual federal trade secret caseload data, the authors conclude that the proposed ban on noncompetes is unlikely to cause an immediate surge in trade secret cases.

Follow the links below to read the articles on the ABA’s website: