Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 30
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`U.S. District Judge Alan Albright
`
`PLAINTIFF TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`OPPOSED RULE 59(E) MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE
`SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, ONGOING ROYALTIES, AND INTEREST
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii 
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................. vi 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Touchstream should be awarded supplemental damages for all Chromecast
`devices activated prior to entry of judgment. .......................................................... 2 
`
`The Court should impose an ongoing royalty for Google’s continued
`infringement. ........................................................................................................... 6 
`
`Touchstream is entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest. ................................. 14 
`
`1. 
`
`Prejudgment interest is the rule, not the exception. .................................. 14 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Prejudgment interest is awarded for damages through the
`date of the judgment...................................................................... 16 
`
`The Court should award prejudgment interest at the prime
`rate, compounded annually. .......................................................... 16 
`
`2. 
`
`Post-judgment interest .............................................................................. 19 
`
`III. 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`2011 WL 4899922 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2022) .........................................................................2, 3
`
`Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp.,
`2005 WL 1498667 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2005) ...............................................................................3
`
`Affinity of Texas, LLC v. BMW N. Am., LLC,
`783 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ...............................................................................11, 14
`
`Amado v. Microsoft Corp.,
`517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................10, 12
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Instr. Corp.,
`807 F.2d 964 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..................................................................................................17
`
`Cioffi v. Google, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4011143 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2017) ..........................................................................9
`
`Creative Internet Advert. Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`674 F. Supp. 2d 847 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................11
`
`DataTreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`2010 WL 5140718 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2010) ........................................................................17
`
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC,
`2017 WL 4004419 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2017) ..............................................................................5
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`2022 WL 2380332 (W.D. Tex. May 26, 2022) .......................................................................15
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.,
`2018 WL 1156284 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2018) ..........................................................................17
`
`Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S,
`697 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................15
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) .............................................................17, 18, 20
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................3
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`182 F. Supp. 3d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................17
`
`Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.,
`461 U.S. 648 (1983) .....................................................................................................14, 15, 18
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.,
`2018 WL 11357619 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2018) ......................................................................11
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`2019 WL 1877189 (D. Del. Apr. 26, 2019) ...............................................................................7
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`2006 WL 2522506 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006) ........................................................................15
`
`Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2017 WL 1716589 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) ...................................................................16, 20
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`2006 WL 8435710 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2006) ........................................................................15
`
`Itron, Inc. v. Benghiat,
`2003 WL 22037710 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2003) .........................................................................4
`
`Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`2023 WL 2415281 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023) ...............................................................4, 10, 16
`
`Juno Therapeutics v. Kite Pharma, Inc.,
`2020 WL 2844410 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) ...........................................................................12
`
`Lummus Indus., Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp.,
`862 F.2d 267 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................15
`
`Mikohn Gaming v. Acres Gaming, Inc.,
`2001 WL 34778689 (D. Nev. Aug. 2, 2001) .............................................................................3
`
`Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Chimei InnoLux Corp.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Tex. 2011),
`aff’d sub nom. Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Innolux Corp.,
`530 F. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................14
`
`Nat’l Instruments Corp. v. Mathworks, Inc.,
`2003 WL 24049230 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2003)
`aff’d, 113 F. App’x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................5
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Page
`
`NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Serv., Inc.,
`2023 WL 149071 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2023) ............................................................3, 15, 17, 19
`
`Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co.,
`847 F.2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................16
`
`Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
`2019 WL 2389150 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2019) ............................................................................15
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................10
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`609 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ...............................................................................11, 14
`
`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`2021 WL 1912392 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021) .........................................................................18
`
`PCT Int’l Inc. v. Holland Elecs. LLC,
`2015 WL 5210628 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2015),
`aff'd, 668 F. App'x 367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................3
`
`Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Contec Corp.,
`2004 WL 1622442 (D. Del. July 12, 2004) .............................................................................17
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................6
`
`Rehco LLC v. Spin Master Ltd.,
`2020 WL 7025091 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2020) ..........................................................................17
`
`Retractable Techs. Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`2010 WL 9034910 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2010) .........................................................................17
`
`SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC,
`807 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015), vacated on other grounds, 580 U.S. 328
`(2017) .........................................................................................................................................6
`
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................14
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`2014 WL 1457797 (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2014) .............................................................................11
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................6
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
`939 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................16
`
`Videoshare, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:19-cv-00663, Dkt. No. 253 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2022)................................................16
`
`W. Plastics, Inc. v. DuBose Strapping, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5752315 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2020),
`aff’d, 2021 WL 5985361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2021).................................................................17
`
`Whitserve, LLC v. Comput. Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................6, 7
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
`890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................10, 12
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1961 ......................................................................................................................19, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 283 ................................................................................................................................6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ..............................................................................................................3, 14, 15, 18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ....................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 7 of 30
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 7 of 30
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Trial transcript excerpts from July 17-21, 2023
`Trial Exhibit PTX-865
`Trial Exhibit PTX-885
`
`Trial Exhibit PTX-863
`Trial Exhibit PTX-567
`Trial Exhibit PTX-220
`
`Trial Exhibit PTX-314
`Trial Exhibit PTX-285
`
`Trial Exhibit PTX-182
`Trial Exhibit PTX-511
`
`
`
`SPO]O)Olw)
`Touchstream Convertible Notes
`
`Calculation of Pre-Judgment Interest Rates
`
`Declaration of Herb Mitschele
`
`Attachment
`Exhibit 1
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies (“Touchstream”) respectfully requests that the Court
`
`amend the Judgment on Jury Verdict (ECF No. 256) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`59(e) to award Touchstream additional limited relief that is appropriate after a jury verdict of
`
`infringement. Specifically, Touchstream requests:
`
` An accounting and supplemental damages for infringing devices activated after the close
`of discovery in October 2022, which were therefore not included in the jury’s July 21,
`2023, verdict. Because the jury awarded 35.98% of the total amount requested by
`Touchstream, Touchstream requests supplemental damages calculated at 35.98% of what
`Touchstream requested at trial.
`
` An ongoing royalty for Google’s continued infringement following judgment through the
`expiration of Touchstream’s patents. Touchstream requests the same rate from the jury’s
`verdict discussed above, with an additional 50% increase as is frequently granted by courts
`to address the realities of paying a royalty for continuing use of technology that a jury has
`found to infringe.
`
` Pre-judgment interest on the jury’s verdict (and supplemental damages) at the prime rate
`frequently awarded by courts, and compounded annually, which is necessary to fully
`compensate Touchstream for Google’s years of infringement.
`
` Post-judgment interest on the damages owed to Touchstream, as provided by statute, to be
`calculated at the statutory rate at the time of final judgment.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On July 21, 2023, following a five-day trial, the jury rendered its verdict finding that
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) infringed claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 (the
`
`“‘251 patent”), claims 1 and 2 of Patent No. 8,904,289 (the “‘289 patent”), and claims 1 and 14 of
`
`Patent No. 8,782,528 (the “‘528 patents”) through its Chromecast-enabled devices. Dkt. No. 247
`
`at 2. The jury further found that the patent claims were not invalid. Id. at 3. The jury awarded
`
`damages to Touchstream in the amount of $338.76 million. Id. at 4. This award was based on a
`
`reasonable royalty for Google’s use of the patented invention from the beginning of the damages
`
`period (June 4, 2015) until the close of fact discovery (October 9, 2022, the last day for which
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`activation data was produced by Google during discovery). Exhibit A, Trial Tr. 698:24-699:6,
`
`1298:14-16.
`
`It is undisputed that: Google continued to sell Chromecast-enabled devices past the close
`
`of fact-discovery on October 9, 2022, id. at 607:2-8, 836:15-17; that the date of first infringement
`
`was July 24, 2013, id. at 1078:1-7; that the damages period began in June 4, 2015, id. at 1298:14-
`
`16; and that Touchstream was the licensor at the date of the hypothetical negotiation, 623:17-19.
`
`Further, the earliest of the patents-in-suit does not expire until June 2031. See Exhibit B, Trial
`
`Exhibit PTX-865; Exhibit C, Trial Exhibit PTX-885; Exhibit D, Trial Exhibit PTX-863.
`
`On August 23, 2023, the Court entered Judgment on the Jury Verdict. ECF No. 256. This
`
`Motion is timely filed under Rule 59(e). Counsel for Touchstream has conferred with counsel for
`
`Google, and Google opposes Touchstream’s request for supplemental damages, ongoing royalty,
`
`and prejudgment interest, and reserved the right to oppose Touchstream’s request for post-
`
`judgment interest.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Touchstream should be awarded supplemental damages for all Chromecast
`devices activated prior to entry of judgment.
`
`Upon a finding of infringement, a prevailing patentee “is entitled to damages for the entire
`
`period of infringement and should therefore be awarded supplemental damages for any periods of
`
`infringement not covered by the jury verdict.” ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., No. 2:10-cv-248, 2011 WL 4899922, at *1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2022) (quoting TiVo, Inc. v.
`
`Echostar Communications Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64291, at *6, 2006 WL 6830818 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 17, 2006)). In this case, Google did not provide information regarding Chromecast-
`
`enabled devices after fact discovery closed on October 9, 2022, so those infringing devices were
`
`not accounted for in the jury’s verdict. Touchstream should be awarded supplemental damages for
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`all infringing Chromecast-enabled device activations, including activations of infringing devices
`
`not included in the jury’s verdict. See Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197,
`
`1212-13 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (awarding supplemental damages for period from judgment to entry of
`
`injunction); NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Serv., Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00277-ADA, 2023 WL
`
`149071, at *2-3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2023) (Albright, J.) (awarding supplemental damages for the
`
`infringing sales for the time periods not considered in the jury’s verdict, including infringing sales
`
`prior to verdict). “[S]upplemental damages are compensatory in nature” and “calculated in
`
`accordance with the damages awarded in the jury verdict.” ActiveVideo Networks, 2011 WL
`
`4899922, at *2 (citations omitted). They “may take into account pre-verdict infringing sales that
`
`were not covered by the jury verdict due to deficiencies in the discovery production.” Id. at *4
`
`(collecting cases).
`
`District courts routinely grant motions under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for a post-trial accounting
`
`and for an award of supplemental damages where the jury did not consider certain periods of
`
`infringing activity in its damages award. See, e.g., PCT Int’l Inc. v. Holland Elecs. LLC, No. CV-
`
`12-1797, 2015 WL 5210628, at *19 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2015) (holding that the plaintiff was entitled
`
`to accounting of the defendant’s infringing sales during a period running from the day following
`
`the last day for which evidence of the defendant’s sales was presented to the jury to the day the
`
`court entered an injunction prohibiting further sales of the infringing products), aff'd, 668 F. App'x
`
`367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); ActiveVideo, 2011 WL 4899922, at *4 (awarding supplemental damages for
`
`the approximate five month period predating the trial and jury verdict); Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v.
`
`Intex Recreation Corp., No. 02 C 2590, 2005 WL 1498667, at *2-4 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2005)
`
`(awarding supplemental damages for a period running from shortly before the trial to the court’s
`
`entry of an injunction against the defendant) ); Mikohn Gaming v. Acres Gaming, Inc., No. CV-S-
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`97-1383, 2001 WL 34778689, at *18, *23 (D. Nev. Aug. 2, 2001) (awarding a post-judgment
`
`accounting and applying the reasonable royalty rate found by the jury in order to calculate
`
`additional damages owed to the plaintiff).
`
`In this case, Google produced damages discovery only through October 9, 2022.
`
`Supplemental damages are necessary to fully compensate Touchstream for Google’s infringement.
`
`See Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 20-CV-
`
`18, 2023 WL 2415281, at *20-21 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023) (Albright, J) (awarding supplemental
`
`damages). At trial, Touchstream presented reasonable royalty damages through October 9, 2022,
`
`the last date for which Google provided Chromecast-enabled device activation discovery.
`
`Declaration of Mark J. Chandler, ¶ 5 (“Chandler Decl.”); see also Ex. A, Trial Tr. 698:24-699:6.
`
`Touchstream is entitled to an accounting and supplemental damages for any Chromecast-enabled
`
`device activated after October 9, 2022 through to the effective date of any ongoing royalty (as
`
`discussed herein) awarded by the Court. See Itron, Inc. v. Benghiat, No. 99-501, 2003 WL
`
`22037710, at *15 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2003) (“Courts ‘routinely grant motions for further
`
`accounting’ where the jury did not consider certain periods of infringing activity.”). While Google
`
`has indicated that it is willing to provide Touchstream with an accounting through entry of the jury
`
`verdict, it denies any liability for supplemental damages. Touchstream respectfully requests that
`
`the Court order Google to provide an accounting of its additional Chromecast-enabled device
`
`activations from October 10, 2022, to the effective date of any ordered ongoing royalty (i.e., the
`
`entry of a Final Judgment). After receiving the accounting, Touchstream will submit for the
`
`Court’s consideration a statement of the additional amount owed to Touchstream for supplemental
`
`damages incurred during that period and calculated based on the jury’s damages verdict, as
`
`discussed below. See Chandler Decl., ¶ 9.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 12 of 30
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 12 of 30
`
`Supplemental damages should be awarded consistent with the jury’s verdict. See EJ. du
`
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC, 2017 WL 4004419, at *7 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2017)
`
`(“Typically, supplemental damages are calculated based on the jury’s damages verdict.”). In this
`
`case, the jury awarded Touchstream $338.76 million for damages incurred from June 4, 2015,
`
`through October 9, 2022. Ex. A, Trial Tr. 698:24-699:6. This is 35.98% of the amount requested
`
`by Touchstream, and Touchstream accordingly seeks supplemental damages, at 35.98% of the
`
`amount requested by Touchstream, for each device type. See Chandler Decl., § 8; id. at Schedule
`
`1. Specifically, additional royalties owed to Touchstream for each activated device should be
`
`calculated at
`
`the followimg amounts: $5.53 per Chromecast Dongles, $2.76 for Google
`
`Chromecast-enabled device, and $1.38 for each third-party Chromecast enabled device. A
`
`summary ofthose rates is shown below:
`
`Supplemental
`Post-Verdict
`Reasonable Royalty
`Chromecast Device
`
`
`Type Adjustment|Damages Royalty RateAmountPresented
`at Trial
`(per activated device)
`per activated device
`$15.36
`
`35.98%
`
`$5.53
`
`35.98% pO38
`35.98% pT76
`
`
`
`Chromecast Dongles
`
`Third-Party
`Google Chromecast-
`
`enabled Device
`
`$3.84
`$7.68
`
`Chromecast-enabled
`Devices
`
`Touchstream seeks these supplemental damages for all Chromecast-enabled devices
`
`determined by the jury to be infringing and that were not includedin the jury’s verdict. This is
`
`required to fully compensate Touchstream for Google’s infringementandis consistent with the
`
`jury’s verdict. See Nat’! Instruments Corp. v. Mathworks, Inc., No. 2:01-cv-11, 2003 WL
`
`24049230, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2003) aff'd, 113 F. App’x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A failure to
`
`award such [supplemental] damages would grant an infringer a windfall by enablingit to infringe
`
`without compensating a patentee for the period of time between the jury’s verdict and judgment.”).
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`B.
`
`The Court should impose an ongoing royalty for Google’s continued
`infringement.
`
`Google continues to infringe Touchstream’s asserted patents. Touchstream set forth a
`
`prayer for ongoing injunctive relief in its Complaint as well as other equitable relief. Dkt. No. 1 at
`
`31. The Court indicated it would deny Touchstream’s request for an injunction, however. Dkt. No.
`
`225, Pretrial Conf. Tr. 56:20-57:15. Thus, Touchstream seeks equitable relief in the form of an
`
`ongoing royalty in lieu of an injunction. See SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality
`
`Baby Products, LLC, 807 F.3d 1311, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[A]bsent egregious
`
`circumstances, when injunctive relief is inappropriate, the patentee remains entitled to an ongoing
`
`royalty.”), vacated on other grounds, 580 U.S. 328 (2017); Whitserve, LLC v. Comput. Packages,
`
`Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 35 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining the district court’s power to fashion equitable
`
`relief for ongoing infringement: “(1) [I]t can grant an injunction; (2) it can order the parties to
`
`attempt to negotiate terms for future use of the invention; (3) it can grant an ongoing royalty; or
`
`(4) it can exercise its discretion to conclude that no forward-looking relief is appropriate in the
`
`circumstances.”).
`
`A court may grant equitable relief “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent,
`
`on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283. The Federal Circuit “ha[s]
`
`interpreted that provision to permit a court to award ‘an ongoing royalty for patent infringement
`
`in lieu of an injunction’ barring the infringing conduct.” Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`
`849 F.3d 1360, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293,
`
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “An award of an ongoing royalty is appropriate [if] the record supports the
`
`district court’s finding that [the patentee] has not been compensated for [the infringer’s] continuing
`
`infringement.” Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`Here, an ongoing royalty is appropriate and necessary to compensate Touchstream for all
`
`post-trial infringement, as the jury’s verdict “by definition covers only past harm.” Whitserve, 694
`
`F.3d at 35; see also Ex. A, Trial Tr. 698:24-699:6 (Mr. Chandler stating that the damages only
`
`covers the period of 2015 through 2022); id. at Trial Tr. 1305:9-15 (jury instructions on a
`
`reasonable royalty taking the form of a running royalty); Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL
`
`Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 2019 WL 1877189, *6 (D. Del. Apr. 26, 2019) (in light of the
`
`evidence presented and the jury’s award, it was clear the jury did not intend to award a “lump-
`
`sum, paid through-expiration license.”). Without an injunction, failure to award ongoing royalties
`
`here would “leave [Touchstream] uncompensated for future acts of infringement by [Google]
`
`except via resort to serial litigation.” Whitserve, 694 F.3d at 35. Touchstream respectfully requests
`
`an award of ongoing royalties for the duration of Google’s use of the three infringed patents, or
`
`until the patents expire, which is an appropriate prospective remedy to compensate Touchstream
`
`for Google’s ongoing infringement.
`
`At trial, Touchstream’s patent licensing and damages expert Mark Chandler presented a
`
`reasonable royalty damages model based on a hypothetical negotiation between Touchstream and
`
`Google in consideration of the Georgia-Pacific factors. Ex. A, Trial Tr. 583:6-18, 591:4-20, 593:9-
`
`19; Chandler Decl., ¶ 2. Among other evidence, Mr. Chandler identified the Quadriga and
`
`Touchstream Agreement as a comparable license for the hypothetical negotiation, noting that the
`
`agreement was entered into the same month as the hypothetical Google-Touchstream negotiation,
`
`involved the same licensor (Touchstream), involved the same technology, and was a negotiated
`
`license. Id. at 622:18-624:6. Mr. Chandler then identified the portions of the Quadriga Agreement
`
`that were akin to a patent license, including the $0.48 per room, per month fee, the 50/50 split of
`
`ad revenue, and the split of content revenue. Id. at 624:24-626:12.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 15 of 30
`
`
`Mr. Chandler determined that the appropriate structure for the reasonable royalty was a
`
`running royalty calculated on a per unit basis, and he explained to the jury the benefits of a running
`
`royalty structure and why a running royalty structure was more appropriate in this case rather than
`
`a lump sum. Id. at 630:20-632:22. After determining the appropriate structure for the royalty, Mr.
`
`Chandler then addressed the hypothetical negotiation, including the strengths and weaknesses of
`
`the parties’ positions. Id. 633:2-634:1. Mr. Chandler noted that Touchstream recently had its first
`
`patent issued, that the company had garnered media praise, won awards, and recently entered into
`
`a license agreement with industry-leader Quadriga. Id. at 623:20-23; id. at 632:23-633:11; Ex. E,
`
`Trial Exhibit PTX-567 at 567.0004. Mr. Chandler also noted that Touchstream recognized the
`
`potential and importance of advertising and content revenue associated with its technology and
`
`had specifically sought these revenues in its license agreement with Quadriga. Ex. A, Trial Tr.
`
`625:6-13; Ex. E, PTX-567 at 567.0037; see also Ex. A, Strober Testimony, Trial Tr. 98:14-15 (“Q.
`
`So what was the plan to monetize that app? A. Our strategy was to base it on advertising.”); id. at
`
`261:13-262:4 (Mr. Mitschele testifying about the potential Touchstream saw with the ability to
`
`collect advertising revenue).
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. A, Trial Tr. 633:12-18.
`
`After addressing the positions of the parties, Mr. Chandler apportioned the royalty amounts
`
`from the Quadriga Agreement accordingly. Id. at 633:19-636:1, 637:20-640:17, 650:19-653:12.
`
`Mr. Chandler concluded that the parties would have agreed on a royalty of $0.32 per activated
`
`device per month for the Chromecast Dongles (a 33% apportionment), $0.16 per month for Google
`
`Chromecast-enabled devices (a further 50% apportionment), and $0.08 per month for Chromecast-
`
`enabled third-party devices (a further 75% apportionment). Id. at 633:19-636:1, 637:20-640:17,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 16 of 30
`
`
`650:19-653:12. To obtain a per-device amount, Mr. Chandler applied these royalty rates to
`
`Google’s
`
`565:19-20
`
`. Id. at 636:2-6:37:16; see also id. at
`
`; Exhibit F, Trial Exhibit PTX-220; Exhibit G, Trial Exhibit PTX-314; Exhibit
`
`H, Trial Exhibit PTX-285. This resulted in a total, per-device royalty of $15.36 for a Chromecast
`
`Dongle, $7.68 for a Google Chromecast-enabled device, and $3.84 for a Chromecast-enabled
`
`third-party device. Ex. A, Trial Tr. 653:13-654:8; Chandler Decl., ¶ 6.
`
`Through October 9, 2022, a total of
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 603:2-15. Mr. Chandler multiplied each
`
`of these numbers by the corresponding royalty rate
`
`
`
`, resulting in a total damages number of $941,491,212. Id. at 654:9-655:6; see
`
`also Chandler Decl., ¶¶ 5-7; Chandler Decl. Exhibit 1 at Slides 7, 25, 68-69. After being presented
`
`with this evidence, the jury awarded Touchstream $338.76 million for the damages period of June
`
`4, 2015, through October 9, 2022. Id. at 698:24-699:6; Dkt. No. 247 at 4. As previously explained,
`
`this is 35.98% of the amount requested by Touchstream.
`
`Given the jury’s verdict, Touchstream now seeks an ongoing royalty for all future
`
`Chromecast-enabled devices not colorably different from the Chromecast-enabled devices
`
`determined by the jury to be infringing. Id. Specifically, Touchstream requests any ongoing royalty
`
`set at 150% of the jury’s award per activated device. As explained below, such ongoing royalty is
`
`required to fully compensate Touchstream for Google’s infringement. See Cioffi v. Google, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:13-cv-103, 2017 WL 4011143, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2017) (“[T]he purpose of an
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 281 Filed 09/27/23 Page 17 of 30
`
`
`ongoing royalty, an equitable form of relief, is to help fully compensate the patent owner for
`
`infringement of its patent rights.”).
`
`Setting an appropriate ongoing royalty rate “is a matter committed to the sound discretion
`
`of the district court.” Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1364 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord
`
`Paice, 504 F.3d at 1315. When awarding an ongoing royalty, the district court should consider the
`
`“change in the parties’ bargaining positions, and the resulting change in economic circumstances,
`
`resulting from the determination of liability.” XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282,
`
`1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362). Courts should also consider “changed
`
`economic circumstances, such as changes related to the market for the patented products.” Id.
`
`(citing Paice, 504 F.3d at 1315 n.15; ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694
`
`F.3d 1312, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The Federal Circuit’s emphasis on changed circumstances is
`
`particularly important when, as in this case, “a