Delaware Federal Court Keeps Infringement Verdicts Against Anker and Gogo but Grants JMOL of No Damages.

What happened

Both judges kept the infringement verdicts but granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no damages, holding that the patentee failed to apportion. Neither ordered a new damages trial.

FISI v. Anker: what survived

In March 2025, a jury found that Anker USB charging products, including power strips and Type-C wall chargers, infringed patents of Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI): claim 84 of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936, claim 1 of No. 7,239,111, claim 1 of No. 7,453,233 (listed as No. 7,453,223 in the opinion's background and in the verdict form's definitions), and claim 3 of No. 8,624,550. It found willfulness and awarded $13,638,219.

Judge Andrews upheld infringement of all four claims; for Type-C products, infringement of the '936, '111, and '233 claims stands only under the doctrine of equivalents, on testimony he found "sufficient, albeit perhaps just barely." He granted JMOL of no willfulness: the evidence "fails to show that Defendants did so deliberately or intentionally." The verdict form asked no validity question.

FISI v. Anker: damages

The court held that a reasonable jury could find a $0.50 per-unit royalty, between FISI's $2.68 per-unit cost-savings evidence and Anker's figure of about $0.01. "That said, I do not think that Plaintiff has properly apportioned damages," it wrote, reducing damages to zero under TecSec v. Adobe, 978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and Rex Medical v. Intuitive Surgical, 156 F.4th 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2025). FISI's damages expert conceded that the chargers' prongs, power converter, and USB 2.0 connector predated the patents and that he described no apportionment analysis. Trial testimony showed that FISI's $0.50 portfolio rate was "merely an opening offer," and, citing Omega Patents v. CalAmp, 13 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the court held that "the absence of evidence showing that other licensees paid a similar amount for comparable licenses is fatal to Plaintiff's case."

Nor did cost savings excuse apportionment. The court found nothing on the point in Powell v. Home Depot and read Prism Technologies v. Sprint Spectrum, 849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as an admissibility ruling that "does not support the proposition that evidence of cost savings makes the concept of apportionment moot." In a footnote, the court was "quite dubious about Plaintiff's cost savings evidence" but found any Daubert challenge waived. On Anker's alternative new-trial request, it wrote that if the court of appeals finds the damages verdict supported, "I do not believe there would be any reason to grant a new trial."

SmartSky v. Gogo: what survived

On November 21, 2025, a jury found that Gogo willfully infringed claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,312,947, claims 11 and 17 of No. 11,223,417, claims 1 and 2 of No. 9,730,077 (listed as No. 9,713,077 in the opinion's background), and claims 1 and 10 of No. 11,533,639. It awarded $4,712,838 each on the '947 and '417 patents, $8,406,684 on the '077, and $4,840,212 on the '639. SmartSky's claims focus on Gogo's not-yet-activated 5G air-to-ground network, which includes 150 base stations, and related radios and hardware.

Judge Wolson upheld the verdict's rejection of Gogo's anticipation, indefiniteness, and obviousness challenges, its infringement findings on all four patents (the '639 claims under the doctrine of equivalents), and its willfulness finding. After a one-day bench trial, he held that Gogo proved neither materiality nor intent to deceive on inequitable conduct.

SmartSky v. Gogo: damages

After the court excluded SmartSky's expert royalty opinions, in part for failure to apportion, SmartSky tried an "expert free damages case" on a "price premium model," asking the jury in closing to apportion 75% of value to the patented features and using a $39,192,000 base: 52 5G kits shipped in the second quarter of 2024, extrapolated to 552 kits through September 2025, times a $71,000 average price from a Gogo SEC filing.

SmartSky's damages case "relied too much on numerical mumbo jumbo," the court wrote. Citing Power Integrations v. Fairchild, 904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018), it held that "SmartSky provided no evidence of apportionment"; the 75% was attorney argument, which "is not evidence" under Shopify v. Express Mobile (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2025). No one tied speed to price, and Gogo's slowest product was its most expensive: "It was asking them to guess. And a guess can't support a damages award." The base rested on a "cherry-picked sales figure" though Gogo "had only sold 240 units over the preceding two years" (citing Oiness v. Walgreen, 88 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1996)), and the $71,000 was revenue per "ATG unit," a term that refers to some non-infringing Gogo products (citing Enplas v. Seoul Semiconductor, 909 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The court denied as moot SmartSky's motion for enhanced damages, ongoing royalties, and interest. The opinion does not address a new trial.

Why it matters

Both rulings apply TecSec: 35 U.S.C. 284 "does not require an award of damages if none are proven that adequately tie a dollar amount to the infringing acts." Neither cost savings nor closing argument substituted for apportionment evidence.

What to watch next

In FISI v. Anker, watch for any amended judgment replacing the March 12, 2025 judgment on the verdict, and for notices of appeal to the Federal Circuit.

In SmartSky v. Gogo, Gogo's counterclaims on three of its own patents remain pending, with claims construed July 22 and a scheduling order entered October 1; watch for a judgment on SmartSky's claims, including any Rule 54(b) judgment, and for any appeal.

Either case could end by settlement or voluntary dismissal at any time.