The year in damages in the US

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The year in damages in the US

Compared to 2013, this year has seen fewer blockbuster damages awards, with none of more than $500 million. But courts still awarded more than $100 million in eight cases

The largest award came out of the District of Delaware, which ordered Philips to pay Masimo $467 million for infringing patents covering technology used in fingertip devices that measure blood oxygen and pulse rates.

This followed the same court in January awarding Edwards LifeScience $394 million for Medtronic CoreValve for infringing patents covering a heart-valve device. The two companies later agreed to settle all global patent litigation in May, with Edwards LifeSciences paying a $750 million one-time payment and ongoing royalty payments.

Carnegie Melon University, ViaSatr, Alfred E Mann Foundation, WesternGeco, Apple and Power Integrations were also awarded damages of more than $100 million in 2014.

This compares with 2013 when two awards of more than $500 million were given. DuPont was ordered to pay $1 billion of damages to Monsanto in a GMO seed case. And Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $599 million in one of two large awards that year.

Managing IP will be publishing an in-depth look at the year in damages in early January. 


Top damages awards 2014

Rank

Against

Beneficiary

Case

Court

Total damages

1

Philips Electronics North America

Masimo Corporation

Masimo Corporation v Philips Electronics North America Corporation

DED

$467m

2

Medtronic CoreValve

Edwards Lifesciences

Edwards Lifesciences v Medtronic Corevalve

DED

$394m

3

Marvell Technology Group

Carnegie Mellon University

Carnegie Mellon University v Marvell Technology Group

PAWD

$367m

4

Space Systems/Loral

ViaSat

Viasat v Space Systems/Loral

CASD

$283m

5

Cochlear Corporation

Alfred E Mann Foundation For Scientific Research

Alfred E Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v Cochlear Corporation

CACD

$131m

6

Samsung Electronics

Apple

Apple v Samsung Electronics

CAND

$120m

7

ION Geophysical Corporation

WesternGeco

WesternGeco v ION Geophysical Corporation

TXSD

$115m

8

Fairchild Semiconductor International

Power Integrations

Power Integrations v Fairchild Semiconductor International

CAND

$105m

9

Google

SimpleAir

SimpleAir v Google

TXED

$85m

10

Sorenson Communications

Ultratec

Ultratec v Sorenson Communications

WIWD

$44m

Source: Docket Navigator

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With the US privacy landscape more fragmented and active than ever and federal legislation stalled, lawyers at Sheppard Mullin explain how states are taking bold steps to define their own regimes
Viji Krishnan of Corsearch unpicks the results of a survey that reveals almost 80% of trademark practitioners believe in a hybrid AI model for trademark clearance and searches
News of Via Licensing Alliance selling its HEVC/VCC pools and a $1.5 million win for Davis Polk were also among the top talking points
The winner of a high-profile bidding war for Warner Bros Discovery may gain a strategic advantage far greater than mere subscriber growth - IP licensing leverage
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Varuni Paranavitane of Finnegan and IP counsel Lisa Ribes compare and contrast two recent AI copyright decisions from Germany and the UK
Exclusive in-house data uncovered by Managing IP reveals French firms underperform on providing value equivalent to billing costs and technology use
The new court has drastically changed the German legal market, and the Munich-based firm, with two recent partner hires, is among those responding
Consultation feedback on mediation and arbitration rules and hires for Marks & Clerk and Heuking were also among the major talking points
Nick Groombridge shares how an accidental turn into patent law informed his approach to building a practice based on flexibility and balancing client and practitioner needs
Gift this article