$1 billion. “Damages of up to $1 billion are covered under [patent infringement insurance], while $20-30 million are common.” (M. Qaiser, and P. Mohan Chandran, “Patent Insurance: Teflon Coating on Armour?,” iPrex Intellectual Property Solutions, December 30, 2005)
$925 million. Amount Kodak paid to Polaroid in out-of-court settlement for infringement on Polaroid’s instant camera patent. “Eastman Kodak Co. paid $925 million to Polaroid Corp. yesterday as part of a surprise out-of-court settlement of their historic 15-year legal battle over Kodak's infringement of Polaroid's patents on instant camera technology. ...Kodak's payment, meanwhile, included $873 million, the amount of damages awarded Cambridge-based Polaroid by federal Judge A. David Mazzone in January. (That was a revision of his original $909.5 million judgment, issued last October.) The balance represents $52 million in interest. Both companies had appealed Mazzone's ruling, the largest patent-infringement award ever [emphasis added]. Polaroid said it deserved $12 billion, Kodak argued that it owed Polaroid $177 million. The companies said in separate statements that they were relieved to end their long court fight, which began in April 1976 when Polaroid sued Kodak, charging that its new instant camera violated several Polaroid patents.” Largest settlement in patent lawsuit. Most expensive litigation cases. Largest patent infringement verdicts. (Lawrence Edelman, Globe Staff, “Kodak pays Polaroid $925m Part of a surprise out-of-court settlement ends 15-year legal hassle,” The Boston Globe, July 16, 1991) See Polaroid's camera product line.
Take a look at Polaroid's instant camera patents — patent numbers 1) 3,810,211, 2) 3,245,789, 3) 3,594165, 4) 3,689,262, 5) 3,770,439, 6) 3,578,540, 7) 3,709,122, 8) 3,753,392, 9) 3,362,821,10) 3,810,220 — that were at the center of this landmark case.
Search for other patents that were litigated in historic patent infringement lawsuit disputes.
$873 million. Size of patent litigation penalty awarded to Polaroid against Kodak. “More examples of penalties: Polaroid Vs Kodak – US$873 million; Cordis Vs Boston Scientific – US$271 million; 3M Vs Johnson & Johnson [J&J]– US$107.” Patent litigation settlement statistics. Largest patent lawsuit awards in history. (M. Qaiser, and P. Mohan Chandran, “Patent Insurance: Teflon Coating on Armour?,” iPrex Intellectual Property Solutions, December 30, 2005)
$612.5 million. Size of the Blackberry settlement. “Big firms, meanwhile, are pushing to change patent laws to avoid painful lawsuits -- such as Research in Motion Ltd.'s recent $612.5 million settlement payout to NTP, a tiny patent-holding firm that said Research in Motion's popular BlackBerry device infringed NTP's protected technology.” Patent settlement statistics. (Akweli Parker, “Inventor's reality,” Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 2006)
$612 million. Amount Blackberry-maker Research in Motion agreed to pay NTP in patent infringement dispute settlement. “The impetus to reform patent laws came after some high-profile patent disputes that resulted in big damage awards captured Congress' attention. Among the largest, Research in Motion Ltd., the Canadian maker of the BlackBerry, agreed in 2006 to pay the Virginia patent-holding company NTP Inc. a $612 million settlement after a ruling almost shut down sales of the ubiquitous hand-held devices.” Research in Motion patent lawsuit settlement. (Marie-Anne Hogarth, “Proposed U.S. Senate bill would limit patent lawsuit damages,” East Bay Business Times, Friday, February 29, 2008)
$537 million. Size of patent infringement payout damages awarded by a court to Australian inventor Ric Richardson for infringement by Microsoft Corporation on his software piracy patent. “AN Australian inventor is set to share in a damages payout of more than $500 million after a US court ruled that Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, infringed a patented technology used to deter software piracy. Uniloc founder Ric Richardson, who divides his time between Sydney and California, alleged Microsoft made billions of dollars by using his technology in its Windows XP and Office programs. The payout, the fifth-largest patent jury award in US history, could increase three-fold because jurors ruled the infringement was intentional. The $US388 million ($537 million) payout equals about eight days' profit for Microsoft.” One of the largest patent infringement judgments. (Lex Hall, “Aussie inventor wins over Microsoft,” Australian IT, April 16, 2009)
$521 million. Size of patent infringement jury verdict rendered against Microsoft in lawsuit brought by Eolas Technologies and the University of California. "Microsoft said Thursday that it had settled an eight-year patent dispute that resulted in a $521 million jury verdict against it. Terms of the accord were not disclosed. The dispute centered on a feature within Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Web browser that allows embedded links. The patent is owned by the University of California and licensed to Eolas Technologies, a closely held company formed by a university researcher, Michael Doyle. We’re pleased to be able to reach an amicable resolution in this long-running dispute, said Jack Evans, a Microsoft spokesman.” Eolas Technologies inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft Settles a Dispute Over a Feature in Its Browser,” The New York Times, August 31, 2007)
$290 million. Amount awarded by court to inventor Michel Vulpe for infringement on his XML patent by Microsoft Corp. “[The] U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, the Honorable Leonard Davis issued a Final Judgment [on August 11, 2009] which upheld the verdict won on May 20, 2009, by i4i, a global technology company headquartered in Toronto, ON, Canada. The Final Judgment is an award in excess of $290 million and includes a Permanent Injunction against Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for custom XML in Word 2003 and Word 2007. The Final Judgment includes the following: (a) Defendant Microsoft is found to have unlawfully infringed U.S. Patent # 5,787,449 (the "'449 patent"). (b) Microsoft is found to have infringed the '449 patent willfully. . .Michel Vulpe, founder of i4i and an inventor of the '449 patent, says: ‘We are very pleased with the terms of the Final Judgment. The financial award due to i4i is now over $290 million and a Permanent Injunction has also been issued against Microsoft.’” (Press release, “Judge Grants Permanent Injunction against Microsoft in Favour of i4i, Damages now $290 million USD,” PRNewsire, August 12, 2009)
$200 million. Amount of money awarded by a Texas jury in a verdict against Microsoft for infringing on inventor Michel Vulpe’s i4i XML patent in Microsoft Word. “[After an eight day trial before Honorable Leonard Davis] i4i, headquartered in Toronto, ON, Canada, received a $200 million patent infringement verdict from a federal jury who found that Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, infringed on an i4i patent. The verdict was issued on May 20, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Michel Vulpe [is the] founder of i4i and inventor of the patent… The $200 million award reflects the jury's determination of a reasonable royalty for Microsoft's infringement. The Court can increase the award based on the willfulness finding, and i4i can seek a court order blocking further use of its invention by Microsoft. To date this year, the verdict represents the fourth largest jury verdict in the US and the second-largest patent jury award, according to Bloomberg. The jury agreed with i4i that certain versions of Microsoft's Word 2003 and Word 2007 products use ‘extensible mark-up language’, or XML, in a way that infringes i4i's U.S. Patent # 5,787,449.” (“Jury orders Microsoft to pay $200M in damages to i4i,” PR Newswire, May 26, 2009)
$107 million. Size of patent damages awarded to 3M in its medical casting tape patent infringement case against Johnson & Johnson. “[3M] has been awarded damages of US$107 million against Johnson & Johnson for infringements against 3M patents for a fibreglass medical casting tape, according to US press reports. …The judge also found that, while 3M had suffered $53.6 million in actual damages, the wilful [sic] infringement against 3M's patents by Johnson & Johnson justified doubling the amount.” Penalty for wilful patent infringement. (“3M Wins Patent Case Against Johnson & Johnson,” Biomedical Materials, , Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd., July 1, 1991)
$92 million. Amount paid by Sun Microsystems in out-of-court patent infringement settlement. “Sun Microsystems parted with US $92 million in October 2004, in an out-of-court settlement, after Kodak filed a patent infringement lawsuit.” (M. Qaiser, and P. Mohan Chandran, “Patent Insurance: Teflon Coating on Armour?,” iPrex Intellectual Property Solutions, December 30, 2005)
$48.6 million. Amount Chinese firm won against Schneider Electric in the largest patent infringement case in China. “A Chinese firm [Chint Group Co., China’s largest manufacturer of low-voltage electrical equipment] has won a patent infringement case against Schneider Electric and its Chinese distributor. The award of Rmb334.8 million ($48.6 million) in damages is the largest issued for patent infringement in China.” (Connie Carnabuci and Victoria White, Partner, “Largest Damages Award for Patent Infringement,” International Law Office, December 15 2008)
$10.2 million. Amount Ford agreed to pay inventor Robert W. Kearns to settle intermittent windshield wiper patent infringement lawsuit. “Ford Motor Co. yesterday agreed to pay $10.2 million to settle its contentious legal bout with inventor Robert W. Kearns, a former Maryland resident who has accused Ford and 22 other automakers of stealing his patents for intermittent windshield wipers now used on millions of cars worldwide. The 63-year-old Kearns, who contends that the 12-year legal struggle cost him an emotional breakdown and the breakup of his marriage, said through his attorneys that he will press forward with similar suits against Chrysler Corp., Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and other automakers, using the proceeds from the Ford judgment to finance those cases. …A federal jury in January found that Ford had unintentionally infringed on Kearns's patents. The inventor subsequently was awarded $5.2 million, a fraction of the $141 million he originally sought. The money Ford agreed to pay yesterday includes the $5.2 million, plus interest and $1.2 million that had been tied up in a complementary court dispute.” Amount awarded to inventor Rorbert W. Kearns in the intermittent wiper lawsuit. (Warren Brown, “Ford, Inventor Settle Wiper Suit; Robert W. Kearns to Get $10.2 Million, Plans to Sue Others,” The Washington Post, November 15, 1990) Robert W. Kearns died in 2005. He is buried at Mt. Kelly Cemetery in Dearborn, Michigan. View inventor Bob Kearns' original patent.
Flash of Genius Movie Trailer
Watch the Flash of Genius movie trailer. Read reviews about the movie Flash of Genius - the film story about the inventor Bob Kearns and his battle with Ford Motor Company over his intermittent wiper patent. Discover books about Bob Kearns and his story.