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

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article