Opinion ID: 208578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FMC's Motion for Prejudgment Interest

Text: FMC asserts the district court abused its discretion when it denied FMC's motion for prejudgment interest, and we agree. It is unclear why the district court denied that motion because it gave no explanation for doing so. According to statute, [u]pon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. 35 U.S.C. § 284 (emphases added). When a patentee asserts a patent claim that is held to be valid and infringed, prejudgment interest is generally awarded. See GM Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 656-57, 103 S.Ct. 2058, 76 L.Ed.2d 211 (1983) (holding that some circumstances, such as a patentee's undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit, may justify limiting or withholding prejudgment interest but noting that prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award). Accordingly, on remand, the district court must award interest or provide a valid justification for withholding interest. [5] As for the parties' remaining arguments, we have carefully considered them and find them unpersuasive.