Case 3:15-cv-01429-JD Document 191 Filed 06/14/18 Page 1 of 2

1 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

Marcus T. Hall, Bar No. 206495
2 marcus.hall@troutman.com
Dean A. Morehous, Bar No. 111841
3 dean.morehous@troutman.com
Craig C. Crockett, Bar No. 265161
4 craig.crockett@troutman.com
580 California Street, Suite 1100
5 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415.477.5700
6 Facsimile: 415.477.5710

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff

KENU, INC.
8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 SAN FRANCISCO COURTHOUSE
12

13 KENU, INC., Case No. 15-cv-01429-JD

14 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF KENU, INC.’S OBJECTION

TO ORDER AND PROVISIONAL
15 v. ELECTION RE: DAMAGES

16 BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Trial date: June 11, 2018

17 Defendant.

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
T ROU T MA N S ANDE RS LLP 15-CV-01429-JD
580 CALIFORNIA STREET, 11TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
PLAINTIFF KENU, INC.’S DAMAGES STATEMENT
35457746v1
 Case 3:15-cv-01429-JD Document 191 Filed 06/14/18 Page 2 of 2

1 Plaintiff Kenu, Inc. (“Kenu”) hereby respectfully objects to the Court’s order (Dkt. No.

2 190) requiring it to elect a remedy pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289 prior to the return of a

3 verdict by the jury in this case. Nowhere in Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d

4 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002), does the Federal Circuit impose a requirement for an election between the

5 two available remedies for design patent infringement prior to a return of a verdict. Catalina

6 Lighting holds only that double recoveries for infringement are not allowed, which Kenu of

7 course does not seek. See Catalina Lighting, 295 F.3d at 1290-91. Rather, the Federal Circuit,

8 as well as other Circuit Courts of Appeals, have held that any election of remedies or action to

9 avoid double recovery should be done after the return of a verdict by the jury and before entry of
10 final judgment. See, e.g., Aero Products International, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F. 3d

11 1000, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Bowers v. Baystate Techs., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317, 1327

12 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which in turn quotes Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir.1999)(“[t]he

13 law is clear that the jury may award separate damages for each claim, ‘leaving it to the judge to

14 make appropriate adjustments to avoid double recovery.’”)); Wynfield Inns v. Edward Leroux

15 Group. Inc., 896 F.2d 483, 488 (11th Cir. 1990) (“[g]enerally, an election between inconsistent

16 remedies is made after a verdict is entered but prior to the entry of judgment.”). Kiva Kitchen &

17 Bath Inc. v. Capital Distrib. Inc., 319 Fed. Appx. 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff is

18 authorized to make an informed election of remedy even after the jury has rendered a verdict,

19 with knowledge of the amount of both awards.”). Kenu therefore respectfully requests that the
20 Court allow Kenu to make such an election after the return of a verdict.

21 In compliance with the Court’s order, however, Kenu hereby provisionally elects the

22 damages remedy provided for pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

23 Dated: June 14, 2018 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

24

25 By: /s/ Marcus T. Hall

Marcus T. Hall
26 Attorneys for Plaintiff
KENU, INC.
27

28
T ROU T MA N S ANDE RS LLP 1 15-CV-01429-JD
580 CALIFORNIA STREET, 11TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
PLAINTIFF KENU, INC.’S DAMAGES STATEMENT
35457746v1