Case 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-RSP Document 47 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1867
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-912-JRG
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
` S.a.r.l.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`A jury trial commenced in this case on September 12, 2016. After five days in trial, the
`
`jury returned a unanimous verdict (Dkt. No. 593) finding infringement and also finding that the
`
`claims in suit were not invalid.
`
`The jury further found that LG’s infringement of the asserted claims was willful. Such a
`
`finding invites the Court to exercise its discretion to determine whether enhanced damages are
`
`appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284. In addition to determining whether to award enhanced
`
`damages, courts also have discretion as to the amount of damages to be awarded. Halo Elecs.,
`
`Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016) (“District courts enjoy discretion in
`
`deciding whether to award enhanced damages, and in what amount.”).
`
`Section 284 allows district courts to punish the full range of culpable behavior. Id. at
`
`1933. Accordingly, the degree of enhancement should be proportional to the degree of the willful
`
`infringer’s culpability. An enhancement of treble damages may be appropriate to penalize the
`
`most egregious conduct. A less significant enhancement may be appropriate for less egregious
`
`(though still culpable) conduct. The Court also has the latitude not to enhance even if willfulness
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-RSP Document 47 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1868
`
`is found, where the degree of culpability is de minimis. The particular circumstances of each
`
`case must dictate the degree of enhancement. Having considered the totality of the circumstances
`
`in this case, the Court is persuaded that Core Wireless is entitled to enhanced damages toward
`
`the lower end of that spectrum.
`
`It is undisputed that LG had detailed knowledge of the patents-in-suit long before the
`
`filing of this lawsuit. Throughout the course of the licensing negotiations Core Wireless provided
`
`LG with claim charts that set forth detailed infringement contentions. Core Wireless specifically
`
`demonstrated how LG infringes Claim 21 of the ’850 Patent—a claim that the jury unanimously
`
`determined to be infringed by LG. The mere fact that LG was able to muster a non-infringement
`
`position during negotiations and at trial does not necessarily insulate it from enhanced damages.
`
`Id. Moreover, its invalidity defense, which was asserted at trial but rejected by the jury, is belied
`
`by the admission of LG’s corporate representative, Seung June Yi, who testified at his deposition
`
`that after thorough review of the patents-in-suit he concluded that the patents are novel and non-
`
`obvious.
`
`Finally, the Court makes note of with the manner in which LG abruptly terminated
`
`licensing negotiations. After a long series of meetings between the parties, including seven
`
`meetings in Seoul, Korea, LG invited the Core Wireless representatives to Korea one last time
`
`and indicated that it would be making a monetary offer for a license. Rather than make an offer
`
`or engage in serious, good faith negotiations, LG delivered a terse one-page presentation stating
`
`that a lawsuit at that time between the parties was “preferable” to a license, and that LG would
`
`prefer to wait until another major cell phone manufacturer licensed the portfolio, at which point
`
`LG intended to be “a follower” in the established royalty scheme. (LGX-808.) This should have
`
`been done by email. LG’s conduct in making Core Wireless send representatives to Korea to be
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-RSP Document 47 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1869
`
`handed a one-page document like this is clearly within totality of the circumstances which the
`
`Court should properly consider.
`
`It is apparent to the Court that LG’s decision to terminate negotiations and continue
`
`operations without a license was driven by its resistance to being the first in the industry to take a
`
`license, and not by the merits or strength of its non-infringement and invalidity defenses.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the
`
`jury’s verdict and the entirety of the record available to the Court, the Court hereby ORDERS
`
`and ENTERS JUDGMENT as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants” or “LG”) infringe claim 19 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`6,633,536 and claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,804,850.
`
`The asserted claims are not invalid.
`
`Plaintiff Core Wireless is hereby awarded damages against LG and shall
`
`accordingly have and recover from LG the sum of $2,280,000.00 U.S. Dollars,
`
`which amount is a running royalty calculated through the date of trial.
`
`4.
`
`In light of LG’s willing infringement, Plaintiff Core Wireless is hereby awarded
`
`enhanced damages against LG and shall accordingly have and recover from LG
`
`the additional sum of $456,000 U.S. Dollars.
`
`5.
`
`Core Wireless is the prevailing party, and as the prevailing party, Core Wireless
`
`shall recover its costs from LG.
`
`Any and all pending motions as between Core Wireless and LG in this case which have
`
`not been previously addressed by the Court are DENIED.
`
`The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-RSP Document 47 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1870
`Case 2:14-cv-00912-JRG-RSP Document 47 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 1870
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this lst day of November, 2016.
`
` RODNEY GIL RAP
`
`UNITED STAT
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
`
`