Northern District of Ohio Court Grants Permanent Injunction While Denying Plaintiff Damages

Dynamic Mounting, LLC v. AV Express, Case No. 1:18-CV-1931 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 19, 2019)

After finding AV Express liable for patent infringement and granting Dynamic Mounting, LLC a permanent injunction, the court denied Dynamic’s request for reasonable royalty damages due to a lack of sufficient evidence supporting its royalty claims, a failure to properly apportion damages based on the incremental value provided by the patent, and a speculative analysis extrapolating product review numbers from a webpage to determine infringing revenues.

In September 2018, Dynamic Mounting filed its complaint against AV alleging infringement of Dynamic’s U.S. Patent No. 8,724,037 for a mounting system for televisions. When AV failed to answer the complaint by the deadline, the court entered a default judgment against AV.  Dynamic then sought a permanent injunction against AV’s selling infringing products and requested monetary damages as well as attorney fees and costs.

Given AV’s failure to respond to the complaint, the court found AV liable for patent infringement and granted the permanent injunction.

However, the court denied Dynamic’s request for reasonable royalty damages in which it asserted it would have reluctantly agreed to a 15-percent royalty on infringing product sales.  The court stated that Dynamic had failed to “provide any other evidence”  (1) to support this royalty amount and that its assertion on its own was “insufficient to support Plaintiff’s requested damages award.” (2)

In denying the damages, the court noted that 1) Dynamic failed to provide any evidence that it had ever received the asserted royalty from any other licensee, 2) its motion lacked the appropriate evidence for the court to award a reasonable royalty, such as expert testimony, 3) its royalty amount did not consider the necessary apportionment “based on the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the final product[,]” (3) and 4) its royalty base analysis, which estimated AV’s revenues by “extrapolating from the review numbers on Defendant’s webpage and its Amazon.com web page[,]” was speculative. (4)

Based on these shortcomings in Dynamic’s royalty damages claim, the court denied damages recovery without prejudice.

Author(s): Krista L. Santino   

Editor(s):  Barry L. Bell   

Cases Referenced:

Dynamic Mounting, LLC v. AV Express,

Case No. 1:18-CV-1931 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 19, 2019)

1 Opinion & Order, Dynamic Mounting, LLC v. AV Express, Case No. 1:18-CV-1931 (N.D. Ohio), Feb. 19, 2019, at 6.

2 Id. at 6.

3 Id. at 7.

4 Id. at 7.

SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE FULL Spotlight on Intellectual Property Damages

Echelon Analytics is a nationally recognized firm comprised of proven leaders in the areas of economic and financial analysis, financial forensics and investigation, and expert witness services.

Echelon Analytics is not a CPA firm.

Copyright 2019 Echelon Analytics.

1717 Main Street, Suite 3380
Dallas, Texas 75201
214.965.8530

8300 Cypress Creek Parkway, Suite 450
Houston, TX  77070
281.671.6658

730 Arizona Ave,
1st Floor
Santa Monica, CA  90401
310.310.3078

2825 E. Cottonwood Pkwy, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
801.990.3292