Joint Appendix (Part 1)

Case 2:10-cv-02225-JAK-JC Document 197 Filed 05/22/12 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:3369UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES – GENERALCase No. LA CV10-02225 JAK (JCx) Date May 22, 2012II.TitleANALYSISJake Lee v. Mike’s Novelties, Inc., et al.A. Enhanced Damages in Patent Litigation1. Legal Standard35 U.S.C. § 284 provides, in pertinent part:Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate tocompensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for theuse made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed bythe court.When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either eventthe court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found orassessed.Id. (emphasis added). Thus, even after a jury finds that the plaintiff is entitled to damages in a certainamount, the court may increase the jury’s award by up to a factor of three. An award of enhanceddamages is within the district court’s sound discretion. Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed.Cir. 1996). Although a finding of willful infringement authorizes the award of enhanced damages, such afinding does not mandate it. Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1308 (Fed. Cir.2005). However, “[u]pon a finding of willful infringement, a trial court should provide reasons for notincreasing a damages award.” Jurgens, 80 F.3d at 1572.The court must look to the totality of the circumstances, considering both aggravating andmitigating facts, before determining whether, and to what extent, it should exercise its discretion andaward enhanced damages. Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1999).“The paramount determination in deciding to grant enhancement and the amount thereof is theegregiousness of the defendant’s conduct based on all the facts and circumstances.” Read Corp. v.Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1992), superseded on other grounds as recognized inHoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Section 284 requiresa two-step process: first, the court must determine whether the infringer acted with culpability; andsecond, the court must determine whether, given the totality of the circumstances, damages should beenhanced. Jurgens, 80 F.3d at 1570. “An act of willful infringement satisfies this culpability requirementand is, without doubt, sufficient to meet the first requirement to increase a compensatory damagesaward.” Id.CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 14-A19-