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

Cookies Settings

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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article