Western Digital's $500 million penalty for patent infringement reduced to a mere $1 — court says recipient failed to 'adequately tie a dollar amount' to damages
Big storage company gets away lightly.

A California court has reduced the amount Western Digital (WD) must pay after it lost its court battle against SPEX Technologies. The jury originally awarded SPEX $316 million in damages, plus another $237 million in interest, after it found the storage company guilty of infringing on SPEX Patent No. 6,088,802. WD appealed the decision, and the court responded in two ways — it denied the appeal based on the company’s liability to SPEX Technologies, but reduced the amount from over half a billion dollars to just one dollar, as reported by The Register.
“Throughout this litigation, SPEX’s damages theory changed as certain evidence and theories became unavailable. At this stage, and for the reasons discussed above, there is insufficient evidence from which the Court could determine a reasonable royalty,” Judge James V. Selna wrote in his order. He also added, “Accordingly, the Court enters nominal damages in the amount of $1.”
Despite the court upholding the guilty verdict, the plaintiff was unable to prove the dollar value that it lost, resulting in the massive reduction in awards. This happened because the testimony of SPEX’s damages expert was excluded from the trial; thus, the plaintiff had to rely on non-expert witnesses to prove the value it lost because of Western Digital’s infringement.
Since the expert analysis on behalf of SPEX was thrown out, the court decided that it could not grant the $553 million. It has given the plaintiff seven days to respond from June 16, 2025, but the company has yet to release a statement about the issue.
Even though Western Digital lost the case, and it was considered to have infringed on the SPEX patent with its Ultrastar, My Book, and My Passport line of storage drives, the company still considers this decision a massive win, as it’s essentially getting away scot-free from the patent infringement case.
However, this isn’t the only court case the storage company is facing, where hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line. It also lost another patent infringement case in August 2024, when the courts awarded a German scientist $262 million because it was found guilty of using HDD recording technologies that increased drive density by up to three times. The case is currently still on appeal, so we will have to wait until the courts decide to see if WD will have to pay or if it will walk away clean.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
spongiemaster
$500,000 million? To be fair $500 billion does sound like an excessive fine that would have put the company out of business.Admin said:A California court reduced the damages awarded to SPEX Technologies after the testimony of its expert has been excluded from the case.
Western Digital's $500,000 million penalty for patent infringement reduced to a mere $1 — court says recipient failed to 'adequately tie a dollar a... : Read more -
SomeoneElse23
It's easy to make mistakes and typos.spongiemaster said:$500,000 million? To be fair $500 billion does sound like an excessive fine that would have put the company out of business.
But they should have some sort of editor/proof reader...! -
spongiemaster
I agree, but this one is in the title of the article which isn't acceptable from a site as large as this one. Does anyone proofread anything here before it is posted? The cherry on top is that they won't fix this either. No one from the site reads these posts, so nothing pointed out ever gets corrected.SomeoneElse23 said:It's easy to make mistakes and typos.
But they should have some sort of editor/proof reader...! -
Captain Awesome Interesting. But the story doesn't answer what everyone should be wondering. Was the patent infringement legitimate? Or was the original court case filed in West Texas by patent trolls?Reply -
Minus_i7 From the court documents:Reply
( "...Bergman’s opinion ... is premised on the conclusion that the then-asserted(2018) and now-asserted(2023) claims “implicate the same features.” The Exclusion Order found that this conclusion lacks foundation because it lacks a technical, factual basis.
...
“The Court finds that Bergman’s supplemental opinion, which adopts in-full his prior opinion based on different asserted claims, must be excluded because it lacks a factual foundation for its underlying technological assumption.”
...
“A review of the record demonstrates that no factual, technological basis has been provided ... to support Bergman’s conclusion that the current asserted claims and their ‘means for providing’ limitation implicate the same accused product features and functions as the previously asserted claims and their ‘means for mediating’ limitation.”
...
Because Bergman bases the entirety of his current “same damages” opinion on this unsupported factual assumption, as stated in the Exclusion Order, his entire “same damages” opinion lacks foundation." )
The motion filed by WDD to dismiss the testimony is here:
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Spex-Technologies-Inc-v-Western-Digital-Corporation-et-al/NOTICE-OF-MOTION-AND-MOTION-to-Exclude-Opinions-and-Testimony-of-Jim-W-Bergman-filed-by-Defendants-HGST-Inc-Western-Digital-Corporation-Western-Digital-Technologies-Inc-Motion-set-for-hearing-on-9-18-2023-at-01-30-PM-before-Judge-James-V-Selna/cacd-8:2016-cv-01799-00249 -
Maxscunion I try to comment but when I write anything about this I keep getting: "Your content can not be submitted. This is likely because your content is spam-like or contains inappropriate elements. Please change your content or try again later. If you still have problems, please contact an administrator."Reply
I really can't identify what I'm trying to type that meets the above quote.
Bringing light to the fact that SPEX was formed, in 2016 to acquire the patent and sue WD which it did that same year. As a business model, this should not be allowed.