Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Judge: $1.17 billion patent verdict for CMU stands
First Published Jan 16 2014 09:24 am • Last Updated Jan 16 2014 09:24 am

Pittsburgh » A federal judge declined to reduce a $1.17 billion patent infringement verdict that Carnegie Mellon University won against a California technology firm in 2012.

U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer previously rejected Marvell Technology Group’s bid for a retrial in the case involving use of the university’s 1998 patented technology in chips manufactured for computer hard drives.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

In a 73-page opinion released late Tuesday, the judge also rejected Marvell’s argument that that the amount should be reduced by $620 million because of the university’s lack of diligence in protecting its patents.

Fischer said the university "inexcusably" waited five years before suing, but that delay was offset by Marvell’s "deliberate and sustained" infringement. She has yet to rule on university motions to increase damages.

The judge noted that Marvell used the technology to bring in $10.34 billion in revenue and $5.05 billion in profit. She said university researchers worked on the technology from 1995 to 1998 and then applied for a patent, and although Marvell knew of their work, the company developed its technology from 2001 through 2003.

She said Carnegie Mellon knew at least by April 2003 that Marvell was using the technology but did nothing to enforce its rights until shortly before filing the suit in 2009. Although the delay was "not fair to Marvell," the company failed to show that the university let the company make investments while plotting to sue later, she said.

In rejecting a new trial last fall, Fischer said the large amount of the verdict was "part of Marvell’s own making" because the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company failed to keep records, kept using the technology even after the lawsuit began, and took the case to trial despite attempts at mediation.




Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.