Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., et al.

I. BACKGROUND

27 The Court has set out the factual and procedural background of this case in its prior Order Denying Chilisin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Cyntec’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 433. The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with this case’s factual and procedural background and only cites such background to the extent it is necessary for this Order. Cyntec, a Taiwanese corporation that manufactures power chokes, alleged that Chilisin infringed on Cyntec’s patents. ECF 1. During the parties’ first trial, and before Chilisin cross- examined Cyntec’s technical expert, “Cyntec moved for JMOL of nonobviousness, arguing that Shafer and Nakamura were missing claim elements . . . and that Chilisin ‘cannot meet [the] clear and convincing evidence standard as to why [Shafer and Nakamura] would be combined[.]” ECF 336 at 5. Judge Hamilton granted Cyntec’s JMOL motion. Id. On September 1, 2021, a jury found that Chilisin willfully infringed on Cyntec’s patents and awarded Cyntec $1,552,493 in lost profits and a 5% reasonable royalty rate equaling $320,463 in damages. ECF 269 at 5. On…