Omega Patents, LLC v. Calamp Corp.

Summary

The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury's finding that the asserted patent claims were not invalid, but vacated and remanded for a new trial on indirect infringement, compensatory damages, willful infringement, enhanced damages, and attorney's fees. The court held that CalAmp did not directly infringe the system claims of the '876 and '885 patents because the claims required a "transmitter and receiver" for signals, and CalAmp did not provide the cell tower. The court vacated infringement findings for claims requiring a "device code" because the district court erred by failing to construe "vehicle device," allowing the jury to consider an improper theory that the LMU was a vehicle device. The court also found the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from a CalAmp business development director and outside counsel regarding CalAmp's state of mind on infringement, which was relevant to induced infringement and willfulness.

Holdings

1. CalAmp failed to preserve the issue because it did not specifically identify the additional prior art that would be affected by the construction.
2. Yes, there was sufficient evidence that CalAmp sold some devices programmed to use vehicle speed from the data bus to send speed exceedance notifications.
3. No, because CalAmp does not provide all claim elements; it does not provide the cell tower transmitter and receiver.
4. Yes, the district court erred by not construing the term when there was an actual dispute, requiring a new trial on induced infringement for claim 12 of the '876 patent and all asserted claims of the '885 patent.
5. Yes, the exclusion was an abuse of discretion because the testimony was relevant to willfulness and inducement, and not hearsay when offered for effect on listener.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CalAmp preserved its claim construction challenge for invalidity.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence for direct infringement of the '727 patent claim 11.
3. Whether CalAmp directly infringed the systems claims of the '876 and '885 patents.
4. Whether there was sufficient evidence of direct infringement by customers for inducement.
5. Whether the district court erred in failing to construe 'vehicle device' and whether that requires a new trial.
6. Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence of CalAmp's state of mind for willfulness and inducement.
7. Whether the damages award can be sustained based on the affirmed claims.

Disposition

other