Top Plaintiffs' Verdicts by Dollar -- Mformation Technologies Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.

One of the many battles over the technology that has enabled the smartphone revolution in recent years resulted in an eye-popping $147 million damages award for a company that claimed the maker of the BlackBerry had infringed on its patents.

New Jersey-based Mformation Technologies Inc. sued Canada's Research in Motion Ltd. in 2008, accusing the mobile device maker of violating its patent on software that allows people to remotely control cellphones for security and other purposes.

After two weeks of testimony and a week of deliberations, a San Francisco jury found that Research in Motion, which recently changed its name to BlackBerry, had infringed on the patent and ordered it to pay $8 for each phone the company sold since 2008 that used that technology.

The verdict was a huge win for Mformation and its lead attorney Amar L. Thakur, who was a partner at the time with Foley & Lardner LLP. He later moved to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. "Our client was essentially the leader in developing wireless remote device management and recognized how important it was when no one else was working in the field," Thakur said after the verdict was announced. "This technology was fundamental to RIM's success."

The victory did not last long, however, as now-retired Northern District Chief Judge James Ware wiped out the verdict in post-trial proceedings a few weeks later. Ware ruled there was no evidence that Research in Motion had infringed on the patent in question, writing that the jury had no "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" to make its infringement finding. Mformation has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Legal observers took note of the size of the verdict last summer, which they said demonstrated plaintiffs could still persuade juries to award big money, even if judges might have a more skeptical view.

- FIONA SMITH

<!-- Top Plaintiffs' Verdicts by Dollar -- Mformation Technologies Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd. -->