Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 1 of 39
`
`VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 6:21-cv-00457-ADA
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`RIDECO INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC.’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`ADDITIONAL DAMAGES, AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 2 of 39
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
`I.
`The Court Should Permanently Enjoin RideCo. ................................................................. 3
`Via suffers irreparable harm from being forced to compete against its own
`A.
`patented technology. ............................................................................................... 4
`Money damages are inadequate to compensate Via for that harm. ........................ 9
`B.
`The balance of hardships favors an injunction. .................................................... 10
`C.
`An injunction would serve the public interest. ..................................................... 11
`D.
`Absent A Permanent Injunction, Via Is Entitled To Ongoing Royalties. ......................... 13
`The Final Judgment Should Include Supplemental Damages And Interest. .................... 16
`A.
`Via is entitled to pre-verdict supplemental damages. ........................................... 16
`B.
`Via is entitled to pre-judgment interest. ................................................................ 17
`C.
`Via is entitled to post-judgment interest. .............................................................. 19
`RideCo Lacks Both Statutory And Constitutional Standing To Sue Via. ........................ 19
`The ’913 And ’743 Patents Are Ineligible For Patenting. ................................................ 21
`The ’913 and ’743 patents are directed to the abstract idea of selecting the best
`A.
`option for a ride-share trip. ................................................................................... 22
`The ’913 and ’743 patents lack any inventive concept. ........................................ 24
`B.
`The Asserted Claims Of The ’913 And ’743 Patents Are Invalid As Obvious. ............... 26
`A.
`Via’s ’785 patent is prior art. ................................................................................ 26
`B.
`The asserted claims are obvious. .......................................................................... 27
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 3 of 39
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................9
`
`Affinity Labs. of Tex., LLC v. BMW N. Am., LLC,
`783 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .....................................................................................15
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...........................................................................................................21, 24
`
`Amado v. Microsoft Corp.,
`517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`809 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................6, 8, 9, 11, 12
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................14
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................16
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................8
`
`Brown v. Petrolite Corp.,
`965 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................19
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................25
`
`Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
`664 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................7, 10
`
`In re Cirba Inc.,
`No. 2021-154, 2021 WL 4302979 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2021) .................................................21
`
`Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
`823 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................20
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyer Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................4, 7, 10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 4 of 39
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S,
`697 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................17
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ..........................17, 18
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 3034655 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017).................................14
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Comput. Corp.,
`No. 06-cv-369, 2009 WL 2524495 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2009) ...................................................18
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................29
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................13
`
`Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.,
`461 U.S. 648 (1983) .................................................................................................................17
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`967 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................29
`
`Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.,
`581 U.S. 360 (2017) .................................................................................................................21
`
`Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................21, 23, 24, 25
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................24
`
`In re Killian,
`45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................25
`
`Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp.,
`925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 5 of 39
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ...................................................................................................................21
`
`In re Merck & Co.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................29
`
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co.,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................9
`
`NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Serv., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-277-ADA, 2023 WL 149071 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2023) ................................18, 19
`
`NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Serv., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-277-ADA, Dkt. 304 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2023) ......................................13, 14, 16
`
`Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co.,
`847 F.2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................17
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................13
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................26
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................28
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3
`
`Propat Int’l Corp. v. RPost, Inc.,
`473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................20
`
`Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co.,
`56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................18
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................10
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................10, 12
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................23, 24
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 6 of 39
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................15
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................27
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................23
`
`TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................6, 8, 10
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................13
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 836 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .....................................................................................15
`
`W. Plastics, Inc. v. DuBose Strapping, Inc.,
`No. 5:15-cv-294-D, 2020 WL 5752315 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2020) ........................................18
`
`Weisner v. Google LLC,
`51 F.4th 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................23
`
`Whitserve, LLC v. Comput. Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................................17
`
`WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................20
`
`Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc.,
`782 F.2d 995 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..................................................................................................11
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1961 ............................................................................................................................19
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................21, 22, 24, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 281 ..............................................................................................................................19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 283 ..........................................................................................................................3, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ........................................................................................................................16, 17
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 7 of 39
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ......................................................................................................................19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ......................................................................................................................21
`
`Other Authorities
`
`J. Gregory Sidak, Ongoing Royalties for Patent Infringement, 24 Tex. Intell. Prop.
`L.J. 161 (2016) .........................................................................................................................16
`
`Lukas Foljanty, On-Demand Transit Market Report-Midyear 2024 (Jan. 26,
`2025), https://tinyurl.com/24mecptp ..........................................................................................5
`
`Lukas Foljanty, On-Demand Transit 2024 Market Report: On-Demand
`Ridepooling World Map (Feb. 8, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/74fhwacu ..................................11
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 8 of 39
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Via invented virtual-bus-stop technology and created the market for microtransit in the
`
`United States. Its founders saw the shortcomings of traditional forms of public transportation,
`
`including buses that follow fixed routes, inconvenient locations for bus stops, and poorly timed
`
`buses that arrive only intermittently. Via’s founders envisioned an on-demand transit system
`
`with greater flexibility that would allow riders to travel from Point A to Point B more efficiently
`
`using “virtual bus stops” placed in optimal locations across a city, along with dynamic routing
`
`that determines, in real time, where to direct passengers and vehicles. They established Via in
`
`2012 with the goal of “expand[ing] access [to public transportation] for people all over the
`
`country who otherwise don’t have access” to reliable, convenient, and affordable public
`
`transportation, whether because they do not own a car, are elderly or disabled, or are
`
`overwhelmed by traveling with kids, among other reasons. Trial Tr. 91:16-22.
`
`At first, transit agencies refused to meet with Via because they did not believe that Via’s
`
`“dynamic bus [stop]” concept could work at scale as a form of public transit. Tr. 96:5-11. As a
`
`proof of concept, Via launched a pilot service in summer 2013 in an area of New York City that
`
`lacked easy access to the subway system. Tr. 97:1-16. That service eventually expanded across
`
`New York City, and Via “worked extremely hard” to refine its software to operate at scale,
`
`eventually applying to patent its virtual-bus-stop technology in 2015. Tr. 106:5, 128:11-17. Via
`
`obtained patents covering its virtual-bus-stop invention, which combines “a very convenient
`
`ride” for passengers with “pick[ing] up as many people as possible on the way” to provide transit
`
`services. Tr. 218:21-219:7. Cities and transit agencies began taking notice of Via’s successes,
`
`and Via formed partnerships to bring microtransit to cities across the country.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 9 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If the Court does not enter a permanent injunction, it should award Via ongoing royalties
`
`to compensate for RideCo’s post-verdict infringement. And in any event, the final judgment
`
`should include supplemental damages and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Court should
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 10 of 39
`
`also grant judgment as a matter of law that RideCo lacks standing to assert the ’913 and ’743
`
`patents, and the asserted claims of those patents are ineligible for patenting and obvious.
`
`I.
`
`The Court Should Permanently Enjoin RideCo.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, courts may “grant injunctions in accordance with the principles
`
`of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” Accordingly, the injunction
`
`analysis “proceeds with an eye to the ‘long tradition of equity practice’ granting ‘injunctive relief
`
`upon a finding of infringement in the vast majority of patent cases.’” Presidio Components, Inc.
`
`v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting eBay Inc. v.
`
`MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 395 (2006) (Roberts, C.J., concurring)). This history
`
`developed “given the difficulties of protecting” the right to exclude “solely with monetary
`
`relief.” Id. Thus, even after eBay, “the winner of a judgment of validity and infringement may
`
`normally expect to regain the exclusivity that was lost with the infringement.” Edwards
`
`Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F.3d 1305, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (vacating the denial of
`
`a permanent injunction).
`
`To obtain a permanent injunction, Via must show: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable
`
`injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
`
`compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff
`
`and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
`
`disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay, 547 U.S. at 391 (majority). All four factors favor
`
`an injunction here.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 11 of 39
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 14 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 15 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 16 of 39
`
`B.
`
`|pd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 17 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The balance of hardships favors an injunction.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 18 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`An injunction would serve the public interest.
`
`The public interest “nearly always weighs in favor of protecting property rights” with an
`
`injunction, “especially when the patentee practices [its] inventions,” as Via does. Apple, 809
`
`F.3d at 647.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 19 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`—
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 20 of 39
`
`* * *
`
`The eBay factors warrant a permanent injunction against RideCo. Via’s proposed
`
`permanent injunction is attached to this motion.
`
`II.
`
`Absent A Permanent Injunction, Via Is Entitled To Ongoing Royalties.
`
`If the Court does not enter a permanent injunction against RideCo, the Court should
`
`“award[] an ongoing royalty for patent infringement in lieu of an injunction” until RideCo’s
`
`infringement ceases or Via’s patents expire. Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293,
`
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 283). And, in the event of a permanent injunction, the
`
`Court should also award Via ongoing royalties from the date of the verdict through the end of the
`
`injunction’s sunset period for RideCo’s current infringing deployments. The jury’s damages
`
`award accounts only for RideCo’s infringing revenue through August 2022 and does not
`
`compensate Via for post-verdict infringement. Tr. 612:12-19. RideCo’s post-verdict
`
`infringement continues to harm Via, and damages continue to accrue, so this Court should “fully
`
`compensate” Via by “account[ing] for post-verdict sales.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l,
`
`Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`
`612 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding an ongoing royalty “appropriate” where the
`
`patentee “ha[d] not been compensated for [the defendant’s] continuing infringement”).
`
`As this Court has recognized, “[f]ollowing a finding of infringement by a jury, and in the
`
`absence of an injunction, a patentee is entitled to receive ongoing royalties that adequately
`
`compensate[] them for the loss of their lawful right to exclude others from profiting from their
`
`invention.” NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Serv., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-277-ADA, Dkt. 304 at 2
`
`(W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2023). Furthermore, “there is a fundamental difference … between a
`
`reasonable royalty for pre-verdict infringement and post-verdict infringement.” Id. (quoting
`
`Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). After trial, the “determination
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 21 of 39
`
`of liability” changes the “parties’ bargaining positions” and “economic circumstances,” giving
`
`the patentee more leverage in a post-verdict hypothetical negotiation. Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362.
`
`Thus, the jury’s rate sets the floor for ongoing royalties, and courts often award ongoing royalties
`
`for post-verdict infringement at a rate higher than the jury’s. See Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep
`
`GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 3034655, at *6-7 (E.D. Tex. July 18,
`
`2017) (collecting cases). In NCS Multistage, for instance, this Court awarded ongoing royalties
`
`at $1,000 per unit—the rate that the patentee’s expert offered during trial, which was 25% higher
`
`than the jury’s award of $800 per unit. No. 6:20-cv-277-ADA, Dkt. 304 at 5-6. And in Arctic
`
`Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed an award of
`
`ongoing royalties at double the jury’s rate, explaining that ongoing royalties can be “at or near
`
`the infringer’s alleged profit margin.” 876 F.3d 1350, 1357, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Here, the Court should award ongoing royalties at the 10% rate that Mr. Rosen testified
`
`to during trial rather than the
`
` rate that the jury awarded. See Rosen Decl. ¶¶ 30-38.
`
`Several factors justify the increased royalty rate. First, the parties’ legal relationship has changed
`
`fundamentally. RideCo is now an adjudged infringer, and Via occupies a “stronger bargaining
`
`position” than it did before the verdict. NCS Multistage, No. 6:20-cv-277-ADA, Dkt. 304 at 3.
`
`Other changed circumstances also support an upward adjustment to the royalty rate. RideCo’s
`
`annual revenue and gross profit from its infringing use of Via’s patented technology grew by
`
`% and %, respectively, between 2022 and 2024. Rosen Decl. ¶¶ 32-33. Also, since
`
`August 2022 (the latest date for which RideCo produced financial information for trial), RideCo
`
`“has implemented Via’s patented technology at an additional 7 projects in the United States,”
`
`thus increasing its infringing projects by more than 50%. Rosen Decl. ¶ 33. RideCo itself has
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 22 of 39
`
`publicly bragged about its market growth and expansion over the last few years, and it won
`
`accolades in 2024—all for its infringing use of Via’s invention. Rosen Decl. ¶¶ 35-37.
`
`Second, as in NCS Multistage, Mr. Rosen offered trial testimony that supported a 10%
`
`rate. See Tr. 612:8-650:19. He explained his Georgia-Pacific analysis to the jury, including
`
`that: Via’s patented technology offers “significant” “real-world benefits” in “provid[ing] for
`
`faster trips at lower costs,” Tr. 628:7-629:12; Via “has never licensed the three [asserted] patents
`
`to anybody,” Tr. 631:2-13; Via and RideCo compete “head-to-head,” Tr. 632:6-9; and RideCo
`
`has used “virtual-bus-stop technology to market and win bids and has implemented and used it
`
`pretty extensively,” Tr. 642:22-25. Thus, a pre-verdict hypothetical negotiation would have
`
`resulted “in a reasonable royalty rate of no less than 10 percent.” Tr. 650:12-19.
`
`Third, RideCo’s continued infringement after the verdict is willful. Plainly, RideCo
`
`knows of Via’s asserted patents now and understands that RideCo’s system infringes those
`
`patents. Thus, RideCo’s ongoing infringement can only be “deliberate or intentional.” SRI Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 14 F.4th 1323, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In fact, district courts apply a
`
`“general presumption that post-verdict infringement is willful.” VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 324
`
`F. Supp. 3d 836, 862-63 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (citing Affinity Labs. of Tex., LLC v. BMW N. Am.,
`
`LLC, 783 F. Supp. 2d 891, 899 (E.D. Tex. 2011)).1
`
`Together, these factors justify awarding Via ongoing royalties of 10% of RideCo’s
`
`infringing revenue. At minimum, however, Via is entitled to ongoing royalties of at least
`
`
`
`
`1 On March 31, 2025, RideCo’s counsel told Via’s counsel that “RideCo implemented a
`design/configuration change disabling what Via referred to at trial as the ‘Near’ functionality.”
`Although RideCo apparently believes that this change renders its system non-infringing, Via’s
`infringement argument was not limited to the “Near” functionality. See Tr. 444:8-465:3
`(testimony from Via’s technical expert, Dr. Valerdi). Thus, RideCo’s supposed design-around is
`not colorably different from the infringing system adjudicated at trial and continues to infringe.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 23 of 39
`
`of the infringing revenue, per the jury’s award. See Rosen Decl. ¶ 7; NCS Multistage, No. 6:20-
`
`cv-277-ADA, Dkt. 304 at 5. That award determines the minimum rate for ongoing royalties, and
`
`there is no basis to drop below it. See J. Gregory Sidak, Ongoing Royalties for Patent
`
`Infringement, 24 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 161, 175 (2016) (study of ongoing royalty awards from
`
`2007 to 2015 finding zero cases where the ongoing award was lower than the jury’s rate). Via’s
`
`proposed order regarding ongoing royalties and other relief is attached to this motion.
`
`III. The Final Judgment Should Include Supplemental Damages And Interest.
`
`A.
`
`Via is entitled to pre-verdict supplemental damages.
`
`The jury’s damages award accounts only for infringing revenue that RideCo earned from
`
`May 3, 2021 to August 31, 2022. Rosen Decl. ¶ 6. The jury did not consider infringing acts that
`
`occurred from September 1, 2022 through the verdict on January 30, 2025, so the verdict does
`
`not fully compensate Via for RideCo’s pre-verdict infringement. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, “the
`
`court shall award … a reasonable royalty,” and “[w]hen the damages are not found by a jury, the
`
`court shall assess them.” (Emphases added.)
`
`Assessing pre-verdict supplemental damages “merely require[s] applying the jury’s
`
`royalty rate to the undisputed actual infringing sales base.” Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta
`
`Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Here, the jury’s award of $1,385,210.90 translates to a
`
`royalty rate of
`
`, given the royalty base of
`
`. See Rosen Decl. ¶ 7; Tr. 618:13-
`
`24. Via is entitled to pre-verdict supplemental damages for RideCo’s infringing U.S. revenue
`
`from September 1, 2022 to January 30, 2025 at the
`
`% rate that the jury awarded. See Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 967 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(affirming pre-verdict supplemental damages awarded at the jury’s royalty rate following an
`
`accounting of infringing sales “through the date of the verdict”). RideCo produced updated
`
`financial information after the trial, and Mr. Rosen used that data to determine a “supplemental”
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 24 of 39
`
`royalty base of $
`
`. Rosen Decl. ¶ 8. Applying the jury’s rate to that royalty base, Via
`
`is entitled to $
`
` in pre-verdict supplemental damages. Rosen Decl. ¶ 9.2
`
`B.
`
`Via is entitled to pre-judgment interest.
`
`Awarding pre-judgment interest advances “Congress’s ‘overriding purpose of affording
`
`patent owners adequate compensation’ since a patentee’s damages also include the ‘forgone use
`
`of the money between the time of infringement and the date of judgment.’” Whitserve, LLC v.
`
`Comput. Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 36 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex
`
`Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655-56 (1983)). Thus, “[a]s a rule,” courts should award pre-judgment
`
`interest under § 284 “absent some justification for withholding an award.” Id. (quoting Gen.
`
`Motors, 461 U.S. at 657); see also Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S,
`
`697 F.3d 1342, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The award of pre-judgment interest is the rule, not the
`
`exception.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). No justification exists here for denying pre-
`
`judgment interest, so the Court should award Via pre-judgment interest at the prime rate “from
`
`the date of infringement to the date of judgment.” Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co., 847 F.2d
`
`795, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Because RideCo held money during the infringement period that it should have “used to
`
`make royalty payments, it is reasonable to treat that money as a compelled loan from [Via] to
`
`[RideCo] and to value the loan at the rate that [RideCo] would have been required to pay on the
`
`open market for the use of that money.” Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`
`No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055, at *9 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017); see also Rosen
`
`Decl. ¶ 15 (explaining that “Via would likely have been able to earn a return on its investments
`
`2 Via reserves the right to update the calculations for supplemental damages and interest—along
`with the relevant proposed order—after RideCo produces additional information about its current
`deployments, per the March 31, 2025 discovery hearing with the Court.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00457-ADA Document 299 Filed 04/10/25 Page 25 of 39
`
`at the prime rate or higher” if it had “received royalty payments on a quarterly basis”). Courts
`
`generally agree “that the prime rate best compensates a patentee for lost revenues” during the
`
`infri