a paid-up license was awarded. Although the jury heard evidence of two lump-sum licenses WhitServe had previously granted, the parties limited their damages arguments to past infringement rather than projected future infringement. The jury was instructed to award “damages,” which by definition covers only past harm. The jury’s verdict did not indicate that the award was meant to cover future use of WhitServe’s patents, and the trial court did not interpret the award as such. See Telcordia, 612 F.3d at 1377-78 (Fed.Cir.2010) (explaining trial courts have discretion to interpret verdict forms). We, accordingly, decline to find that post-trial relief was properly denied because a paid-up license was awarded. Cf. Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1380-81 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). As for the injunction, while the trial court
holding that injunctive relief was unwarranted when the jurys award already included prospective relief holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer holding that in a suit against state officials in their official capacities monetary relief unlike prospective injunctive relief is generally barred by the eleventh amendment