Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagestrialpatent
damagespatent

Related Cases

Gyromat Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 735 F.2d 549, 222 U.S.P.Q. 4
View Case »
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202, 114 S.Ct. 1461, 128 L.Ed.2d 148, 1994 A.M.C. 1521, 62 USLW 4241, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,826
View Case »
John L. Rie, Inc. v. Shelly Bros., Inc., 366 F.Supp. 84, 181 U.S.P.Q. 157
View Case »
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604, 75 USLW 4034, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,543, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 278, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 348, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 27
View Case »
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 391 F.Supp. 780, 185 U.S.P.Q. 662
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 228 F.3d 1338, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1332

Facts

Ajinomoto, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,278,765, sued Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) for patent infringement, alleging that ADM imported and used genetically engineered bacteria in the U.S. that infringed on Ajinomoto's patent for a method of modifying bacterial genetic structure to produce amino acids. The patent was originally developed by scientists in the former Soviet Union, and Ajinomoto acquired the rights through a series of assignments. After a trial, the district court found that the patent was valid and enforceable, and that ADM's actions constituted infringement.

Issue

Did ADM infringe Ajinomoto's patent, and was the patent valid and enforceable?

Did ADM infringe Ajinomoto's patent, and was the patent valid and enforceable?

Rule

The holder of all substantial patent rights, by assignment or by exclusive license, has standing to sue for infringement in its own name.

Analysis

The district court concluded correctly that Ajinomoto's standing to sue for infringement of the '765 patent had been established. This ruling is affirmed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that ADM infringed Ajinomoto's patent and that the patent was valid and enforceable, although it modified the damages awarded.

The judgment is affirmed, with modification of the damages period.

Who won?

Ajinomoto prevailed in the case, successfully demonstrating that its patent was valid and that ADM's actions constituted infringement. The court found that Ajinomoto had established its standing to sue and that the patent met the necessary legal requirements for validity. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of patent rights and the enforcement of those rights against unauthorized use.

Ajinomoto prevailed in the case, successfully demonstrating that its patent was valid and that ADM's actions constituted infringement.

You must be