This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, one comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a trade secret case on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.
Smith v. Collins (Precedential)
Joshua Smith was substituted in his deceased veteran father’s appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Board denied Mr. Smith’s request for an earlier effective date for benefits for service-connected injuries based on allegedly newly associated service department records. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed. We determine that Mr. Smith’s appeal to this court is moot and thus dismiss.
ams-OSRAM USA Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (Precedential)
In 2008, plaintiff ams-OSRAM USA Inc. (formerly named Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. and hereafter called “TAOS”) sued Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (formerly named Intersil Corporation and hereafter called “Intersil”) in a federal district court in Texas. TAOS asserted patent infringement, but that claim is no longer at issue. TAOS also asserted state-law claims, of which two remain in the case: misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of a confidentiality agreement. In support of both claims, which relate to ambient-light sensors used in electronic products to adjust screen brightness in response to incident light, TAOS asserted that Intersil used information that TAOS revealed to it in confidence. Intersil’s liability on those claims is no longer disputed, but issues about monetary remedies are now before us.
After a jury rendered a verdict for TAOS in 2015, the district court entered judgment that awarded money for trade-secret misappropriation but not for contract breach, deeming the jury’s contract-breach award to be duplicative of the trade-secret award. In 2018, we affirmed Intersil’s liability for trade-secret misappropriation on a more limited basis than had been presented to the jury. We therefore vacated the trade-secret monetary award and remanded, adding that (exemplary damages aside) what TAOS sought was disgorgement of profits that in this case had to be decided by the judge, not the jury. In light of our disposition of the trade-secret award, we also vacated the judgment that had denied an award for contract breach as duplicative of the (originally broader) trade-secret award. We remanded for appropriate proceedings. Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., 895 F.3d 1304, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (TAOS 2018).
On remand, the case narrowed to the trade-secret and contract issues, and the district court held additional proceedings, including a new jury trial, that led to a jury verdict and to findings made by the district judge. Regarding TAOS’s remedy for Intersil’s misappropriation of TAOS’s trade secret, the resulting monetary award had two parts: (1) a sum, determined by the district judge, representing disgorgement of Intersil’s profits from certain sales of its ISL29003 product; and (2) exemplary damages of double that sum, arrived at by applying a Texas statute to reduce the higher amount of exemplary damages the jury found warranted. Regarding TAOS’s remedy for Intersil’s breach of contract, the resulting monetary award, based on the jury’s verdict and TAOS’s election of remedies, was a reasonable royalty on Intersil’s sales of products other than the ISL29003. As relevant here, TAOS also was awarded prejudgment interest on both the just-noted awards and attorneys’ fees for its work on the contract claim.
Both parties appeal. We affirm the monetary awards, with one exception. We agree with Intersil that the district court erred in one aspect of its disgorgement analysis, but that aspect by itself ends up making no difference to the disgorgement award, given that we reject all other challenges to the appealed rulings on the trade-secret and contract awards, including Intersil’s as well as TAOS’s challenges. We also affirm the award of attorneys’ fees. But we find error in the district court’s analysis of prejudgment interest, and we remand on that issue.
In re Williams (Nonprecedential Order)
Ben Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to vacate its order denying his motion for leave to appear pro hac vice in Luv n’ care Ltd. v. Laurain, No. 3:16-cv-777 (W.D. La.). Mr. Williams also moves to stay district court proceedings pending resolution of his petition. We deny the petition and the motion.