This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Exmark Manufacturing Company v. Briggs & Stratton Corp. (Nonprecedential)

The parties and this litigation appear before us for the second time, having taken a long and winding road since Exmark filed its patent infringement suit against Briggs in 2010 alleging infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,863. The procedural history leading up to the first appeal was thoroughly explained in our prior opinion, Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and only claim 1 remains at issue. Relevant to this second appeal, following grant of summary judgment of infringement and no invalidity, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found that Briggs willfully infringed claim 1 of the ’863 patent. Id. at 1337. Our prior opinion vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no invalidity and the ultimate damages award, remanding for reconsideration of invalidity and, if necessary, a retrial on willfulness and damages. Id. at 1353–54.

On remand, the district court again ruled that claim 1 was not invalid as a matter of law. Following another jury verdict on damages, the district court awarded enhanced damages for willfulness. The district court also awarded prejudgment interest at an interest rate which was later adjusted in response to a motion filed by Exmark under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this second appeal, Briggs challenges the district court’s rulings that claim 1 is infringed and not invalid, as well as the adjustment of prejudgment interest. We affirm.

Rule 36 Judgment