Sixty-seven patent infringement trials reached a jury verdict in 2024. Of these 67 patent infringement verdicts, thirty-one (approximately 46%) were a complete patent owner win on all patent infringement and validity issues. Twenty verdicts (approximately 29%) were a win for the patent challenger, defined as no award of patent infringement damages by the jury. The remaining seventeen jury verdicts (approximately 25%) reflected a mixed result on infringement and/or validity, with the jury awarding the patent owner at least some patent infringement damages.

What were the top patent infringement damages verdicts, and how much did the jury award?

Twelve juries awarded patent infringement damages over $100 million. These large patent infringement verdicts came from varied districts including, the Eastern District of Texas (5), Delaware (3), Central District of California (2), Western District of Texas (1), and Eastern District of Virginia (1).

These verdicts are:

  1. $857 millionGeneral Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al, 2-22-cv-00394 (EDTX)
  2. $445 millionNetlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology Texas, LLC et al, 2-22-cv-00294 (EDTX)
  3. $315 million+SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Western Digital Corporation et al, 8-16-cv-01799 (CDCA)
  4. $262 million+MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., 8-22-cv-01599 (CDCA)
  5. $242 million – IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 1-18-cv-00001 (DDE)
  6. $192 million+Mojo Mobility Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, et al, 2-22-cv-00398 (EDTX)
  7. $151 million+Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 2-21-cv-00137 (EDVA)
  8. $142 million G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 2-22-cv-00078 (EDTX)
  9. $121 million+AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, 6-21-cv-00898 (WDTX)
  10. $118 millionNetlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 2-22-cv-00293 (EDTX)
  11. $114 million+Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. et al. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al, 1-19-cv-01334 (DDE)
  12. $107 million+Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al, 1-21-cv-01338 (DDE)

The largest jury award of patent infringement damages in 2024 was $857 million in General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al, 2-22-cv-00394 (EDTX). This verdict, however, did not stand; post-trial motions resulted in the verdict being overturned, and a new trial on damages was set for December 2024. In December, after the first full day of the second trial, a notice of settlement and motion to stay was filed.

Another seven verdicts awarded patent infringement damages between $40 million and $100 million. These patent infringement verdicts came from districts including Delaware (2), Western District of Texas (2), Northern District of California (1), Eastern District of Texas (1), and Minnesota (1).

The remaining 29 jury verdicts that awarded patent infringement damages awarded damages under $40 million.

District Court Trends

Over two-thirds of the jury verdicts resulted from trials held in three districts:

  • the District of Delaware (22 verdicts),
  • the Eastern District of Texas (12 verdicts), and
  • the Western District of Texas (13 verdicts).

The Central District of California was the next most prolific, with 5 juries reaching a verdict in 2024. Once recognized as a patent infringement “rocket docket,” the Eastern District of Virginia had only two patent infringement cases reach a jury verdict in 2024.

In the Eastern District of Texas, 10 out of 12 juries found for the patent owner and awarded some damages (almost 83%); in the Western District of Texas, 8 out of 13 juries (approximately 61%) found for the patent owner and awarded some damages. Perhaps surprisingly, the juries in the District of Delaware were as likely as juries in the Eastern District of Texas to find in favor of the patent owner and award some measure of damages for patent infringement, with 18 out of 22 juries (82%) finding in favor of the patent owner and awarding some measure of damages.

Willful Infringement Trends

Half of the cases that went to verdict included a question about willful infringement on the verdict form. This could be interpreted to suggest that cases with a triable willful infringement claim are less likely to settle before a verdict. Of those cases that included a willfulness question in the verdict form, the outcomes were as follows:

  • Infringement, but no willfulness (8);
  • no infringement and did not answer willfulness (1); and
  • willful infringement of at least one asserted claim (25) (i.e., almost 72% of the times that willfulness was included).

When compared to the overall success rate of patent owners, this data suggests patent owners who have a triable claim of willful infringement are more likely to successfully persuade a jury their patents have been infringed.

Invalidity Trends

Excluding damages-only trials, about a quarter of cases (14 out of 63) that went to verdict did not include any invalidity question. As likely expected, where no question of invalidity was presented, patent owners were more likely to prevail on infringement, with juries awarding patent infringement damages in 12 of those 14 verdicts, or almost 85% of the time.

Of the 48 cases where the verdict form included at least one question of invalidity, the juries found all claims “not invalid” 75% of the time. Five verdicts resulted in mixed conclusions on invalidity with only some claims being found invalid, and only five of the juries concluded all asserted claims were invalid. The remaining two verdicts did not answer the invalidity question. For this subset of 48 cases, the juries did not award patent infringement damages in 16 of the cases (approximately 33%). This suggests that even if a patent challenger does not ultimately prevail on invalidity, invalidity arguments tend to increase a patent challenger’s overall likelihood of success.