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

damagesappealwillpatentcorporation
damageswillpatentcorporation

Related Cases

Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161
View Case »
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641, 74 USLW 4248, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3935, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5756, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 197, 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 685
View Case »
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 446 F.2d 295, 170 U.S.P.Q. 369
View Case »
Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 49 Fed.R.Serv.3d 739, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,068, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3344, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4129
View Case »
In re Marriage of Foster, 2014 IL App (1st) 123078, 17 N.E.3d 781, 384 Ill.Dec. 799
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kori Corp. v. Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc., 761 F.2d 649, 225 U.S.P.Q. 985

Facts

Kori Corporation, an exclusive sublicensee of U.S. Patent No. 3,842,785 for an amphibious marsh craft, brought an action against Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. for patent infringement. The district court found that Wilco had willfully infringed the patent by manufacturing and selling a similar product. The court awarded Kori damages based on lost profits from infringing sales and rentals of Wilco's machines. Wilco appealed the decision, contesting the validity of the patent and the damages awarded.

Kori Corporation is an exclusive sub-licensee under the '785 patent. The '785 patent was originally issued to Huey J. Rivet on October 22, 1974, for an invention entitled 'Amphibious Marsh Craft.' Rivet subsequently granted Louis J. Woodson, whose family owns Kori Corporation, an exclusive license under the '785 patent. Woodson then granted an exclusive sub-license to Kori Corporation.

Issue

Whether the district court properly awarded damages to Kori Corporation for patent infringement and whether the patent was valid.

Whether the district court properly awarded damages to Kori Corporation for patent infringement and whether the patent was valid.

Rule

Analysis

The district court found that Kori would have sold or rented the infringing machines had Wilco not infringed. The court used Wilco's profits as a reasonable estimate of Kori's lost profits, as evidence indicated that Kori's profit margins would have been similar. The court also applied the entire market value rule, determining that Kori could anticipate the sale of the entire machine, including both patented and unpatented components, as they were not usable independently. The court's findings were supported by the evidence presented.

The district court found that Kori would have sold or rented the machines built by Wilco were it not for Wilco's infringement. Although Wilco argued that there were non-infringing substitutes available, the district court's conclusion was based on findings that Wilco 'directly competed' for the sale of these machines with Kori, and that 'from a buyer's perspective, the only acceptable substitute for the patented Kori machines were the infringing machines.' 561 F.Supp. at 526, 217 USPQ at 1306.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Kori was entitled to damages based on its ability to exploit the patent and that the damages awarded were appropriate given the circumstances of willful infringement.

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Kori was entitled to damages based on its ability to exploit the patent and that the damages awarded were appropriate given the circumstances of willful infringement.

Who won?

Kori Corporation prevailed in this case as the court upheld the district court's findings that the patent was valid and that Wilco had willfully infringed it. The court affirmed the damages awarded to Kori, which were based on lost profits from the sales and rentals of infringing machines. The court found that Kori's calculations of lost profits were reasonable and that the district court had not abused its discretion in its damage calculations.

Kori Corporation prevailed in this case as the court upheld the district court's findings that the patent was valid and that Wilco had willfully infringed it.

You must be