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 2026

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

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article