NEC Corporation v. Anker — Patent Infringement and Willfulness Questions Head to Trial

Background

NEC accused Anker and its eufy business of infringing patents covering technology used in connected devices. Before trial, Anker sought summary judgment of noninfringement on several patents and asked the court to eliminate NEC’s theories of willful and induced infringement. The parties also challenged expert opinions, amended infringement contentions, and proposed trial exhibits.

A central notice issue arose from a June 3, 2024 letter in which NEC identified three asserted patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,037,467, 10,999,635, and 11,210,526—along with roughly seventy other patents. Anker argued that the letter did not show knowledge of infringement or an intent to infringe.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied Anker’s summary-judgment motions on noninfringement of the ’526, ’635, ’467, and ’814 patents. Those claims therefore remained for trial. It also refused to grant judgment against NEC’s pre-suit and post-suit willfulness theories or its induced-infringement theory.

Judge Gilstrap concluded that material factual disputes remained over what Anker knew and intended after receiving NEC’s letter. The court explained that a jury could find Anker justified in declining to respond or investigate, but it could also draw the opposite conclusion after hearing the witnesses. That competing evidence could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The court narrowed some expert testimony, including apportionment analysis used in the damages case, while allowing supplemental reports on that issue. Those evidentiary rulings affected how the parties could present damages but did not remove NEC’s core infringement claims.

Key Takeaways

• A pre-suit patent notice letter may support willfulness and inducement even when it identifies many patents, if the record leaves genuine disputes about the recipient’s knowledge and intent.
• Denial of summary judgment is not a finding that Anker infringed; it means a jury must resolve the disputed facts.
• Expert-apportionment problems can be cured through limited supplementation when the court permits it, rather than automatically eliminating a damages theory.

Why It Matters

Companies receiving a patent notice letter face a practical risk-management decision. Ignoring a letter that specifically identifies asserted patents may later become evidence supporting enhanced-damages or inducement theories, even if the letter also includes a much larger portfolio. A documented, technically grounded response can matter when intent becomes a jury question.

For patent owners, the order confirms that knowledge and intent often depend on testimony and surrounding facts. Surviving summary judgment preserves those theories, but NEC must still prove infringement and the required mental state at trial.

Full Opinion