Omega Patents, LLC v. Astroflex, Inc. DC

The Federal Circuit has overturned part of a damages award in a long-running automotive dispute between Omega Patents LLC and CalAmp. On September 14, the appellate court held in a precedential opinion that the royalty of $5 per infringing device imposed by a Florida judge improperly lacked apportionment—partly because the plaintiff’s damages case failed to account for the “inventive aspects” of the patent at issue.

Omega Patents, L.L.C. has once again charged DEI Holdings (6:20-cv-00693) with patent infringement in the Middle District of Florida, asserting eight patents generally related to tracking or remotely controlling vehicles. The plaintiff pleads that DEI, “a former Licensee of a large number of Omega Patents . . . has advised Omega that it no longer considers the License Agreement to be valid, subsiding, or binding between the parties”. The disputes between these two parties are several, dating back to at least 1999, and this latest one comes as Omega Patents and CalAmp head back to the Federal Circuit after a retrial in the same district led to a jury verdict and subsequent judgment in Omega’s favor to the tune of $4.6M plus interest.

The Federal Circuit has reversed a $15M final judgment in an Omega Patents LLC suit against CalAmp, ordering a new trial for many of the issues addressed in a February 2016 willful infringement verdict (2018-1309). In a precedential opinion issued on April 8, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that the company had directly infringed a single claim from one patent but granted a new trial as to two other patents, also issuing a judgment of noninfringement for certain claims from one of those two patents. The appeals court also granted a retrial as to the infringement of two of the patents-in-suit by CalAmp’s customers. Additionally, the Federal Circuit ordered a new trial on inducement based on the prejudicial exclusion of testimony by a CalAmp executive and its outside counsel. The Federal Circuit further reversed and remanded as to the jury’s finding of willfulness and overturned the lower court’s enhanced damages award.