Well this is a new one. In Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., C.A. No. 22-1377-JLH (D. Del.), the parties dispute whether the patentee, Apple, has a right to a jury trial. That hinges on whether Apple is seeking damages—if it can only get an injunction, it has no right to a jury trial. Id., D.I. 745 at 5.
The Court found that Apple had, in fact, asked for a total of $250 in damages for infringement of four design patents and five utility patents, and that it was therefore entitled to a jury trial. That's two-hundred and fifty dollars—you're not missing any zeros or a "k" afterwards.
(By my math, assuming at least five attorneys and two paralegals are involved, I'd guess that Apple's total damages figure is equal to the cost of about four minutes of trial time by Apple's trial team, or less. It's probably less.)
Apparently, Apple's damages figure results from the fact that $250 is the statutory minimum damages for infringement of a design patent under 35 USC § 289. According to the Court, Apple's experts testified that the $250 statutory minimum for the design patents under § 289 also constituted the entire damages award for the utility patents under § 284. Id., D.I. 745 at 4-5 n.1. Apple also wants the Court to treble that to $750. Id.
But Masimo really doesn't want a jury trial here. It pushed hard for a bench trial, to the point where its counsel apparently brought $900 in cash to court and handed it to opposing counsel:
In an exciting turn of events, Masimo’s counsel tendered $900.00 cash to Apple’s counsel at the pretrial conference, in an attempt to “moot” Apple’s request for damages and remove any basis for trying the case to a jury. Apple’s counsel returned the cash.
Id., 5 n.3.
The Court held that even if Apple's counsel had kept the cash, the effort would not have worked because it's not complete relief:
But even if he hadn’t, I still think the case must be tried to a jury. Masimo’s offer to give Apple some of the remedy it seeks does not “moot” the action or even Apple’s claims for patent infringement—Masimo hasn’t admitted liability and hasn’t agreed to stop selling the allegedly infringing products. In other words, Masimo hasn’t offered to provide Apple with complete relief for its infringement claims, so those infringement claims are not moot. Masimo cites no authority for the proposition that an alleged infringer’s tender of damages for past infringement removes the patentee’s right to a jury trial when the alleged infringement is still ongoing. Masimo relies on United States v. Google LLC, No. 23-108, slip op. (E.D. Va. June 11, 2024), but in that case, unlike here, the defendant’s offer of payment for past conduct offered complete relief on one of the counts in the complaint.
That said, the Court did not seem particularly enthused about the idea that Delaware jurors will be troubled to address just $250 in damages:
Apple would not have a right to a jury trial if it was not seeking $250.00 in damages (which Apple wants the Court to treble for a total of $750.00), as everyone agrees that Apple would have no right to a jury trial if it were only seeking injunctive relief. But Apple was clear at the pretrial conference that it wanted a jury to hear its $250.00 damages claim (which could get trebled), notwithstanding the cost and the disruption to the Delawareans called as jurors.
Id. at 5.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
