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

Sheppard has added quantum and robotics expertise to its AI industry team to help clients navigate questions around inventorship and IP infringement
The 2026 Americas ceremony recognised outstanding firms and practitioners, along with highlighting impact cases of the year
A development concerning Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright application in India and an integration between IPH group firms were also among the top talking points
As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Gift this article