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

damagesappealverdicttestimonypatentcorporation
damagesappealverdicttestimonypatentcorporation

Related Cases

Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1110
View Case »
Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1128
View Case »
Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. 812, 1869 WL 11498, 19 L.Ed. 829, 9 Wall. 812
View Case »
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 104 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001
View Case »
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561, 127 S.Ct. 1423, 167 L.Ed.2d 295, 63 ERC 2088, 75 USLW 4167, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3424, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4293, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 123
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801

Facts

Fonar Corporation sued General Electric for infringing two patents related to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. The first patent, U.S. Patent 4,871,966, pertains to a method for multi-angle oblique (MAO) imaging, while the second patent, U.S. Patent 3,789,832, involves using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging to detect cancer. A jury found that GE infringed the MAO patent and awarded Fonar $34 million in damages, but the court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of GE regarding the cancer detection patent. Both parties appealed the decision.

Fonar Corporation sued General Electric for infringing two patents related to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. The first patent, U.S. Patent 4,871,966, pertains to a method for multi-angle oblique (MAO) imaging, while the second patent, U.S. Patent 3,789,832, involves using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging to detect cancer. A jury found that GE infringed the MAO patent and awarded Fonar $34 million in damages, but the court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of GE regarding the cancer detection patent. Both parties appealed the decision.

Issue

Did the district court err in its judgment regarding the validity and infringement of the '966 patent and in determining damages for infringement of that patent?

Did the district court err in its judgment regarding the validity and infringement of the '966 patent and in determining damages for infringement of that patent?

Rule

To determine if a patent satisfies the best mode requirement, two inquiries must be made: whether the inventor had a best mode at the time of filing, and whether that mode was disclosed in sufficient detail for someone skilled in the art to practice it. Additionally, patent infringement requires a two-step analysis: proper construction of the claim to determine its scope, followed by comparison with the accused device or process.

To determine if a patent satisfies the best mode requirement, two inquiries must be made: whether the inventor had a best mode at the time of filing, and whether that mode was disclosed in sufficient detail for someone skilled in the art to practice it. Additionally, patent infringement requires a two-step analysis: proper construction of the claim to determine its scope, followed by comparison with the accused device or process.

Analysis

The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the '966 patent satisfied the best mode requirement, as the inventors had a best mode and disclosed sufficient details about the software functions and the gradient multiplier board. The jury's finding of infringement was also supported by expert testimony indicating that GE's machines performed the steps defined in the claims using equivalent acts. The entire market value rule allowed for damages based on the entire MRI machine's value since the MAO feature was a significant driver of customer demand.

The court found that substantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the '966 patent satisfied the best mode requirement, as the inventors had a best mode and disclosed sufficient details about the software functions and the gradient multiplier board. The jury's finding of infringement was also supported by expert testimony indicating that GE's machines performed the steps defined in the claims using equivalent acts. The entire market value rule allowed for damages based on the entire MRI machine's value since the MAO feature was a significant driver of customer demand.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict regarding the infringement of the '966 patent and the damages awarded, while reversing the JMOL concerning the '832 patent, concluding that GE did not induce infringement.

The court affirmed the jury's verdict regarding the infringement of the '966 patent and the damages awarded, while reversing the JMOL concerning the '832 patent, concluding that GE did not induce infringement.

Who won?

Fonar Corporation prevailed in the case, successfully proving that General Electric infringed its patent concerning multi-angle oblique imaging. The jury awarded Fonar significant damages, reflecting the value of the patented technology and its importance in the market. The court upheld the jury's findings, emphasizing that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that GE's machines met the limitations of the patent claims.

Fonar Corporation prevailed in the case, successfully proving that General Electric infringed its patent concerning multi-angle oblique imaging. The jury awarded Fonar significant damages, reflecting the value of the patented technology and its importance in the market. The court upheld the jury's findings, emphasizing that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that GE's machines met the limitations of the patent claims.

You must be