Amsted Industries Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co. case brief
summary
24 F.3d 178 (1994)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's patent. After a trial, the jury found in plaintiff's favor and awarded plaintiff damages and attorney fees. On appeal, defendant challenged the court's determinations of willful infringement, enhanced damages, attorney fees, and notice. Plaintiff cross-appealed from the court's ruling that its damages were limited.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's decision in part, but vacated in part and remanded, determining that the lower court erred when it denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the date that plaintiff notified defendant of its infringement.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
24 F.3d 178 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which
the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and determined that
defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's patent.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's patent. After a trial, the jury found in plaintiff's favor and awarded plaintiff damages and attorney fees. On appeal, defendant challenged the court's determinations of willful infringement, enhanced damages, attorney fees, and notice. Plaintiff cross-appealed from the court's ruling that its damages were limited.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that 35 U.S.C.S. § 287(a) provided that, absent marking, a patentee could not recover damages without proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement.
- Additionally, the court determined that a notice must be of the infringement, not merely notice of the patent's existence.
- The court reviewed the evidence and determined that plaintiff did not give defendant notice until it sent a letter that specifically charged defendant with infringement.
- Accordingly, the court determined that the lower court erred when it denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the notice issue.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's decision in part, but vacated in part and remanded, determining that the lower court erred when it denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the date that plaintiff notified defendant of its infringement.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment