IBM asks for double damages in Groupon infringement case
IBM has asked a US judge to double the patent damages owed by Groupon from $82.5 million to $165 million.
In a filing (pdf) made on Wednesday, September 26, the US company also asked for attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and an ongoing royalty rate.
It comes two months after the US District Court for the District of Delaware ordered Groupon to pay IBM $82.5 million for wilfully infringing four patents (numbers 5,796,967; 5,961,601; 7,072,849; and 7,631,346).
The patented technologies cover online advertising and ways of making it easier for web users to connect to an internet provider, among others.
IBM told the court that enhanced damages are justified because the jury granted wilful infringement.
It added that such a finding is necessary because of Groupon’s “continuously resistant and dilatory misbehaviour, extending through discovery, expert reports, summary judgment, and trial”, plus Groupon’s “lack of a good-faith belief in its trial defences, despite years of pre-suit knowledge and discussions of the patents-in-suit”.
On attorneys’ fees, IBM said the amount should be agreed with Groupon before the companies submit a proposal to the court. The company also asked for $13.6 million in pre-judgment interest, for post-judgment interest to be calculated at a rate of 2.44% per day, and an ongoing royalty.
However, the chance of the enhanced damages request being granted may be low in view of earlier comments made by the judge in the case, Leonard Stark, who said in August that he was likely to deny post-trial motions from both sides.
Stark wrote to the companies explaining that Groupon was expected to file motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law, and that IBM was likely to file motions for enhanced damages—which it now has.
“With respect to Groupon’s anticipated motions, my inclination is to deny all the motions for judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and no damages with respect to the asserted claims,” the judge warned.
Discussing IBM’s expected motions, Stark said his inclinations at the time were to deny a motion for enhanced damages, although he did not address other issues including interest and attorneys’ fees
The case continues.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today's top stories
UKIPO refuses Nokia trademark opposition and cancellation
UK Patent Box claims jump to £942.5m in value
SCOTUS agrees to hear copyright fight between Oracle and Rimini
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk