Juries returned a series of sizable damages awards in patent infringement suits this past year. However, subsequent developments in some of the cases with 2024’s largest verdicts underscore how a jury verdict is frequently not the final word on damages—with the year’s top verdict, an $847M award in East Texas, falling apart entirely due to a post-trial ruling; four others increased at final judgment with the addition of interest, in one case this past week; and another trimmed by a posttrial noninfringement ruling. Here, RPX takes a look back at these and the other top ten verdicts of 2024.

The third quarter of 2024 saw multiple funded NPEs launch new patent campaigns, with several funded plaintiffs also filing new cases in existing litigation campaigns. In addition, towards the end of the quarter, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded a large verdict to a plaintiff funded by a prominent litigation finance firm.

An Eastern District of Texas jury has returned a verdict for Mojo Mobility, Inc. in a case filed against Samsung back in October 2022 over a set of wireless charging patents. The jury found all eight claims (from five patents) infringed, willfully, and not proven invalid (as obvious), awarding a lump sum payment of just over $192M. The additional, equitable defense of prosecution laches remains available to Samsung; this summer, Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap adopted a report and recommendation denying to Mojo Mobility partial summary judgment on the issue because genuine disputes of material fact exist both as to whether alleged delays in prosecution of the asserted patents were reasonable and as to whether those delays prejudiced Samsung, by in the meantime “investing in, working on, or using the accused technology” in connection with, for example, the Galaxy S6.

Mojo Mobility, Inc. has filed its first litigation, suing Samsung (2:22-cv-00398) in a new Eastern District of Texas complaint that targets the provision of smartphones, wearables, and stylus pens with wireless charging support, as well as wireless chargers capable of charging those products. The inventor-controlled plaintiff asserts seven wireless charging patents, pleading facts concerning interactions between the two parties in and around 2013 that never ripened into a hoped-for partnership, prompting the current case, in which Mojo seeks a permanent injunction.