The number of patent cases filed in the US, on average 4500 to 5500 in the last two year, is way more than any other country in the world. Hence, there is no dearth of patent lawsuits in the US where huge damages were awarded to plaintiffs. Having that in mind, we thought to compile nine initial damages awarded since 1991. Among these nine, eight touched the $1bn mark. Some among these were settled while pending appeal – CMU vs Marvell, some are still under appeal, and some got remanded or reduced – Alcatel Lucent vs Microsoft, for example. So let’s have a look why judges awarded big initial damages first and how later a defendant decreased the amount.

1. Initial Damages
Awards in USA9

2. 4500 to 5500 Patent cases were filed in the US in the last two
years, which is way more than any other country in the world.
Hence, there is no dearth of patent lawsuits in the US where
huge damages were awarded to plaintiffs.

3. Having that in mind, we thought to compile nine
initial damages awarded since 1991.
Among these nine, eight touched the $1B mark.

4. #1
20162.54B
Andrew Carter of Ocean Tomo testified on behalf of Idenix. Using
Carter’s analysis Idenix’s attorney in the opening statement explained why
they are seeking $2.54 billion as damage which was 10% royalty and not
lost profit. Gilead’s damage expert countered it with $73 million to $380
million range.
$
Vs Gilead Sciences IncIdenix

5. #2
20132.15B
Pfizer vs Teva was another interesting case of recent time where generic
drugmakers, for the first time, paid damages for marketing a generic copy
of a drug patent of which has yet to expired. This is also known as ‘at-risk’
launch.
Teva and Sun Pharma launched generic copies of Pfizer’s blockbuster
drug Protonix in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The patent on the drug was
going to expire in 2011.
$
Vs TEVA & Sun PharmaPfizer

6. #3
20091.67B
Centocor was awarded $1.672 billion in 2009 when the jury found the
asserted claims valid and Abbott, the defendant, liable for willful
infringement. The Federal Circuit later reversed the decision as
Centocor patent was not satisfying the written description requirement.
$
Vs Abbott LaboratoriesCentocor Inc

7. #4
20071.50B
Alcatel-Lucent awarded $1.53 billion in final verdict in August 2007 where it
claimed that Microsoft's Windows Media Player infringed its patents. The
infringement was filed by Lucent Technologies in 2003 which later in 2006 merged
with Alcatel. The infringed patent covered MP3 and MPEG encoding and
compression technology.
$
Vs MicrosoftAlcatel-Lucent

8. #5
19931.20B
The federal jury concluded that Honeywell deprived Litton of $1.2 billion –
$830 million till the expiration of the patent and $360 million after the
expiration of the patent. The FC later affirmed that Honeywell didn’t
infringe Litton’s patent and remanded for consideration of infringement
under DOE. The District Court, upon remand, granted SJ and JMOL for
non-infringement.
$
Vs HoneywellLitton

9. #6
20121.17B
A federal jury in Pittsburg ordered, in 2012, Marvell to pay CMU $1.17
billion for infringing two patents by CMU. The CAFC later cut
the damages to $278 million and further ordered a re-trial over other
damages issues. In 2016, both parties decided to settle the case at
$750 million than litigating the case further.
$
Vs Marvell Technology GroupCarnegie Mellon University

10. #7
20121.04B
Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung in April 15, 2011 in the District Court
of California. The jury found that Samsung had infringed Apple’s patents,
trademarks, UI, and style. On the first trial verdict, the jury awarded $1.049
billion to Apple by found that Samsung willfully infringed on Apple’s
design and utility patent of several smartphone technologies like bounce-
back effect, on-screen navigation, and tap-to-zoom. Unfortunately,
USPTO later invalidated the bounce back patent which affected the trial.
$
Vs SamsungApple

11. #8
20121B
Monsanto was awarded damages of $1B when federal jury found DuPont
willfully infringed Monsanto's patent related to roundup ready soybean
technology. DuPont already was a licensee of the patents but it modified
the seed which was not the part of the licensing agreement.
Later in 2013, both companies entered into a new licensing deal where
DuPont agreed to pay Monsanto $1.75 billion. Further, the companies
dropped patent infringement and antitrust lawsuit against each other.
$
Vs Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, IncMonsanto Company

12. #9
1991925M
This again was one of the famous patent battles where huge damages
were sought for patent infringement. Polaroid sued Kodak for infringing its
12 patents covering instant photography technology and sought triple
damages which were amounted to $12 billion. Various WSJ analysts
expected $1.5 billion to $2 billion awards.
In October 1990, Kodak was ordered to pay Polaroid $909 million in
damages which later get amended to $925 million with interest.
Vs KodakPolaroid
$