Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty Company

Filing 127

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 116 MOTION for Reconsideration re 102 Judgment Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Final Judgment Under Rule 59(e) To Include Prejudgment Interest filed by Intellectual Ventures II LLC is GRANTED signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 03/30/2020. Intellectual Ventures is awarded $358,041.00 in prejudgment interest. The Court will amend it's judgment accordingly.(ksd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-CV-00299-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC’s (“IV”) Motion to Reconsider
Final Judgment under Rule 59(e) to Include Prejudgment Interest (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 116.)
Having considered the Motion and for the reason set forth herein, the Court is of the opinion that
the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED-AS-MODIFIED.
A jury trial commenced in this case on March 8, 2019, and on March 13, 2019, the jury
reached and returned its verdict finding that Defendant Great West Casualty Company (“Great
West”) infringed Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,516,177 (the “’177 Patent”); that Claim 14 of the
’177 is not invalid; and that IV was entitled to recover $1,500,000 in compensatory damages from
Great West. (Dkt. No. 99.) A final judgment was entered in this case on March 18, 2019. (Dkt.
No. 102.) In the final judgment, the Court made no mention of prejudgment interest. (Id.) On April
15, 2019, IV filed the instant Motion seeking to have the Court award IV prejudgment interest.
(Dkt. No. 116.) Great West filed its response on April 30, 2019. (Dkt. No. 119.) In the response,
Great West “does not dispute that some amount of prejudgment interest may be awarded.” (Id. at
1.) As such, the only issue for the Court to decide is what rate should be used to calculate the

prejudgment interest; the award of such prejudgment interest to be included by amendment in the
final judgment in this case.
“The rate of prejudgment interest and whether it should be compounded ‘are matters left
largely to the discretion of the district court.’” Erfindergemeinschafter UropPep GbR v. Eli Lilly
& Co., 2:15-cv-1202-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75517 at *23 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017)
(Bryson, J., sitting by designation) (quoting Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Instrument Corp., 807
F.2d 964, 969 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “Generally, prejudgment interest should be awarded from the date
of infringement to the date of judgment.” Nickson Indus. v. Rol Mfg. Co., 847 F.2d 795, 800 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
Great West urges that the appropriate rate for the prejudgment interest is tied to the 5-year
Treasury Bill (“T-Bill”) rate as there is no evidence that IV has borrowed money at any rate, or
took on debt that it could have otherwise avoided if it received the damages award. (Dkt. No. 119
at 4.) IV identifies precedent from both this Court and elsewhere that application of the prime rate
is standard practice in the Eastern District of Texas. Erfindergemeinschafter UropPep, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 75517 at *23–24 (“[T]he "standard practice" in the Eastern District of Texas is to
award prejudgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterly.”) (collecting cases). Further,
IV argues that the Federal Circuit does not require “a patentee demonstrate that it borrowed at the
prime rate in order to be entitled to prejudgment interest at that rate.” Uniroyal, Inc. v. RudkinWiley Corp., 939 F.2d 1540, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Great West also argues that a lower rate is appropriate because IV waited more that 18
months to file its complaint since the date of first infringement. (Dkt. No. 119 at 4.) IV, however,
responds that Great West failed to show that this delay was truly “undue.” (Dkt. No. 121 at 4
(emphasis in original).) Further, IV alleges that Great West failed to put forward any evidence

2

indicating that the 18-month time gap was a “litigation tactic.” (Id. at 5.) Finally, IV highlights that
Great West sought out, and was granted, a stay of these proceedings for 19 months. (Id.)
Regardless, the Court is invested with ample discretion with which to set the rate it believes
appropriate, as this Court is in the best position to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis and
considering the totality of the circumstances, the rate it believes most appropriate for a given

.
award.
The Court has done so and, in this case, finds that an award of prejudgment interest,
calculated at the prime rate, compounded quarterly, from the date of the infringement is
appropriate. Accordingly, IV’s Motion is GRANTED.
Accordingly, IV is hereby awarded $358,041.00 in prejudgment interest, and the Court will
hereafter amend its judgment in this case accordingly.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of March, 2020.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3