Carnegie Mellon University ———
Patent Lawsuit  ›  Case History Timeline

This timeline lists significant legal events in the Carnegie Mellon patent infringement litigation.  Some dates include links to the court filings that are publicly available online.

  • March 6, 2009 – Carnegie Mellon University files a complaint [.pdf] against Marvell in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. The complaint accuses Marvell of infringement of two patents issued to the university.
  • April 20, 2012 – Marvell files a motion for partial summary judgment regarding Group II claims. [Motion is sealed]
  • April 20, 2012 – CMU files an opposition to Marvell’s motion. [Document is sealed]
  • May 21, 2012 – Marvell files a reply to CMU. [Document is sealed]
  • August 24, 2012 – The Court grants Marvell’s motion [.pdf] for summary judgment dismissing the Group II claims (Claims 11, 16 19 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,201,839 and Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,438,180).
  • April 20, 2012 – Marvell files a motion for partial summary judgment stating that it cannot be held liable for infringement of the CMU patents for chips that are never used in the United States, and that CMU cannot recover damages arising from Marvell’s sales of such chips as a matter of law. [Motion sealed]
  • May 21, 2012 – CMU challenges this motion, stating that it is entitled to recover damages for any sales that resulted from Marvell’s domestic infringement. CMU also asserts that all of Marvell’s chip sales occur in the United States. [Document is sealed]
  • June 4, 2012 – Marvell files its Reply brief. [Document is sealed]
  • August 24, 2012 – The Court decides Marvell’s motion [.pdf]. The Court found that Marvell chips do not infringe when used outside of the United States. The Court, however, denies Marvell’s motion in respect to alleged damages arising from sales that either occur within the U.S. and/or are “but-for result of Marvell’s infringement of the CMU Patents during the sales cycle.”
  • November 26, 2012 – Jury selection begins in the trial, which lasts four weeks.
  • December 26, 2012 – The jury announces its verdict [.pdf] that Marvell willfully infringed on CMU’s patents. The jury awards damages of $1.169 billion.
  • January 14, 2013 – The court enters judgment [.pdf] in favor of CMU on the jury’s verdict of $1.169 billion award, noting that post-trial motions by both sides could affect the judgment and size of the award.

Carnegie Mellon Moves for Enhanced Damages Based on Marvell’s Willful Infringement

Carnegie Mellon Moves for a Permanent Injunction Against Marvell

Carnegie Mellon Moves for Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment Interest on the Jury’s Award

Carnegie Mellon Moves for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Marvell Moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur with Respect to Damages

Marvell Moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, New Trial on Non-Damages

Marvell Moves for Judgment on Laches

  • May 1-2, 2013 – Post-trial oral arguments are heard by Federal District Judge Nora Barry Fischer.
  • January 14, 2013 – The court enters judgment [.pdf] in favor of CMU on the jury’s verdict of $1.169 billion award, noting that post-trial motions by both sides could affect the judgment and size of the award.
  • March 29, 2013 – The court issues an order [.pdf] denying Marvell’s motion requesting that some of the evidence that had been entered in the record of the public court proceeding be sealed.
  • June 26, 2013 – The court issues an order [.pdf] denying the motion for an award of attorneys’ fees without prejudice, so CMU may renew the request at a later date.
  • July 29, 2013 – The court issues an order [.pdf], on the motion for a permanent injunction against Marvell, requesting that both parties provide a joint status report containing updated information regarding Marvell’s financials, by no later than August 9, 2013.
  • September 23, 2013 – The court issues an opinion [.pdf] and order [.pdf], that grants, in part, CMU's Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages. The Court reserves its further rulings on said motion and will issue another opinion at a later date. This opinion also denies Marvell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur With Respect To Damages and Non-Damages.
  • March 31, 2014 - The Court issues an opinion [.pdf] and order [.pdf] granting CMU’s motions for (1) supplemental damages up to the date of the judgment in the amount of $79,550,288; (2) enhanced damages based on Marvell’s willful infringement in the amount of $287,198,828; (3) ongoing royalties for Marvell’s post-judgment sales of infringing chips at the rate of $.50 per chip; and (4) post-judgment interest. Additionally, the opinion and order denies the University’s motions for a permanent injunction and prejudgement interest.
  • December 6, 2013 – CMU files a motion [.pdf] to permit registration of the judgment in jurisdictions outside of the Western District of Pennsylvania.
  • December 6, 2013 – CMU files a motion and petition [.pdf] to prevent Marvell Technology Group and Marvell Semiconductor from conveying or encumbering any assets outside of the ordinary course of business.
  • December 20, 2013 – Marvell files a sur-reply [.pdf] in opposition to CMU's motion for supplemental relief in aid of execution.
  • December 23, 2013 – The Court issues an order [.pdf] denying CMU's motion for supplemental relief in aid of execution.
  • May 14, 2014 – Marvell files a notice of appeal [.pdf] to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and post a supersedeas bond [.pdf].
  • August 4, 2014 – Marvell files a brief [.pdf] in support of its appeal.
    • August 11, 2014 – Nine companies file an amicus curiae brief [.pdf] in support of Marvell.
    • August 11, 2014 – Fifteen law professors file an amicus curiae brief [.pdf] in support of Marvell.
  • October 20, 2014 – CMU files a brief [.pdf] responding to Marvell's opening brief.
    • October 27, 2014 – Six universities file an amicus curiae brief [.pdf] in support of CMU.
    • October 27, 2014 – Daniel B. Ravicher a patent attorney, files an amicus curiae brief [.pdf] in support of CMU.
  • November 20, 2014 –Marvell files a reply brief [.pdf].
  • April 7, 2015 – Oral arguments [.mp3, 17 MB] are heard by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • August 4, 2015 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issues opinion [.pdf], affirming judgment for at least $278 million plus interest in damages and remanding for partial new trial to determine location of sale of chips for possible additional damages.
  • January 21, 2014 – Ex parte reexamination requests for patents 6,201,839 [.pdf] and 6,438,180 [.pdf] are filed with the Patent and Trademark Office.
  • February 26, 2014 – The Patent and Trademark Office grants the ex parte reexamination requests for patents 6,201,839 [.pdf] and 6,438,180 [.pdf].
  • June 4, 2014 – The Patent and Trademark Office issues a non-final rejection [.pdf] of claim 4 of patent 6,201,839, which triggers CMU’s obligation to formally respond to that reexamination request.
  • July 31, 2014 – The Patent and Trademark Office issues a non-final rejection [.pdf] of claims 1 and 2 of patent 6,438,180, which triggers CMU’s obligation to formally respond to that reexamination request.
  • August 22, 2014 – CMU participates in an interview with Examiners regarding claim 4 of patent 6,201,839.
  • September 4, 2014 – CMU files written response to non-final rejection of claim 4 of patent 6,201,839 [.pdf].
  • September 19, 2014 – The Patent and Trademark Office confirms the validity of CMU’s patent 6,201,839 [.pdf].
  • October 28, 2014 – CMU files written response to non-final rejection of claims 1 and 2 of patent 6,438,180 [pdf].
  • October 29, 2014 – The Patent and Trademark Office issues the reexamination certificate for patent 6,201,839 [.pdf], thereby concluding those proceedings in CMU’s favor.
  • January 5, 2015 – The Patent and Trademark Office confirms the validity of CMU’s patent 6,438,180 [.pdf].