Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
307
FINAL JUDGMENTSigned by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 09/07/2018. (klc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC.,
TEKTRONIX COMMUNICATIONS,
TEKTRONIX TEXAS, LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00230-JRG
FINAL JUDGMENT
A jury trial commenced in this case on October 10, 2017 and evidence closed on October
13, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 239-42.). Following submission of the evidence to the jury and while the
jury deliberated, a bench trial was conducted as to the equitable issues and concluded on
October 13, 2017. (Dkt. No. 242.) The jury returned a verdict on October 13, 2017, finding that
Defendants NetScout Systems, Inc., Tektronix Communications, and Tektronix Texas, LLC
(collectively “Defendant” or “NetScout”) willfully infringed Claims 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,665,725, Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751, and Claims 19 and 20 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,954,789 (collectively the “Asserted Claims”); that none of the Asserted Claims
were invalid; and that Plaintiff Packet Intelligence LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Packet Intelligence”)
was entitled to damages in the amount of $5.75 million dollars as a running royalty. (Dkt. No.
237.)
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance with the
jury’s unanimous verdict and the entirety of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS and
ENTERS JUDGMENT as follows:
1. Defendant NetScout has directly infringed the Asserted Claims.
2. The Asserted Claims are not invalid.
3. Plaintiff is hereby AWARDED COMPENSATORY DAMAGES against Defendant
and shall accordingly have and recover from Defendant the sum of $5,750,000 U.S.
Dollars.
4. Plaintiff Packet Intelligence is the prevailing party.
5. As explained in the concurrently issued Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Enhanced
Damages and Entry of Judgment and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is hereby
AWARDED ENHANCED DAMAGES against Defendant and shall further have and
recover from Defendant the sum of $2,800,000 U.S. Dollars.
6. As explained in the concurrently issued Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Pre- and PostJudgment Interest and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Plaintiff is AWARDED PREJUDGMENT INTEREST in the amount calculated at the five-year U.S. Treasury Bill
rate, compounded monthly, adjusting the effective rate with each and every change in said
five-year U.S. Treasury Bill rate from the date of first infringement.
7. As explained in the concurrently issued Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Pre- and PostJudgment Interest and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the Court AWARDS PLAINTIFF
POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST on all sums awarded herein, at the statutory rate, from
the entry of this Final Judgment until paid.
8. As explained in the concurrently issued Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Enhanced
Damages and Entry of Judgment and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, the Court finds the
case is NOT EXCEPTIONAL.
9. As explained in the concurrently issued Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Ongoing
Royalty, THE ONGOING ROYALTY RATE IN THIS CASE IS HEREBY SET
AT 1.55% of the revenue received by Defendant produced by the post-verdict
infringing conduct (use, sales, offers for sale, or importation into the United States) of
the accused G10 and GeoBlade products through the life of the asserted patents.
10. As reflected in the Court’s previously issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
(Dkt. No. 298), the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to show that the Asserted
Claims are ineligible under § 101.
11. As explained in the concurrently issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the
.
Court concludes that Defendant has failed to show that the Asserted Claims are barred
under the doctrines of either unclean hands or inequitable conduct, and accordingly
the affirmative defenses of unclean hands and inequitable conduct are denied and
dismissed.
12. All other relief requested by either party and not specifically awarded herein is
DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED TO CLOSE the above referenced case.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of September, 2018.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?