Ann: Trading Halt, page-81

The Court first went through the Read Factors, to determine whether an infringer’s behavior warranted enhanced damages, ultimately finding against Verisk on all nine Read factors. The Court’s discussion of Verisk’s behavior is a veritable roadmap for “what not to do” as a would-be infringer:

• Factor 1: The Court found that Verisk deliberately copied the patented ideas from EagleView. During the trial, Verisk admitted that it toured EagleView’s facilities, and even took pictures. They then internally discussed adopting EagleViews technology for themselves.
• Factor 2: Verisk did not investigate the scope of EagleView’s patent and did not form a good-faith belief that they did not infringe.
• Factor 3: Verisk repeatedly ignored the weakness of their own arguments and instead made the litigation needlessly complex to increase EagleView’s costs.
• Factor 4: A Defendant’s size and financial condition can sometimes be a deterrent to awarding enhanced damages, but the Court was not deterred here. The Court found that trebling damages would not severely impair Verisk’s ability to function, especially based on the possible support of Verisk’s parent company.
• Factor 5: When the jury returned their verdict after only two hours of deliberation, the Court saw this as evidence of the case not being close at all, seeing Verisk’s arguments as mere “spin.”
• Factor 6: The Court looks to how long the misconduct continued. Here, Verisk’s infringing misconduct lasted nearly a decade, from 2012 up until the post-verdict injunction in 2019.
• Factor 7: Verisk never took remedial actions and maintained they did nothing wrong throughout.
• Factor 8: Here, the Court noted that Verisk appeared to be “driven by a specific animus toward EagleView,” citing an inexplicable aura of animosity between the parties throughout the trial.
• Factor 9: Verisk attempted to conceal its misconduct at all turns.