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

defendantdamagestrialverdictpatentcorporationjury trialjury instructions

appealtrialverdictpatentobjection

Related Cases

Lummus Industries, Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp., 862 F.2d 267, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1983

Facts

Lummus Industries, Inc. holds a patent for an apparatus designed to cut continuous filament textile fiber bundles into uniform lengths. D.M. & E. Corporation and Machine Development Corporation manufactured and sold cutter reels specifically designed for this patented apparatus. The case arose when Lummus alleged that the defendants' actions constituted patent infringement, leading to a jury trial where the jury found in favor of Lummus, awarding damages for the infringement.

MDC manufactures and DM & E sells cutter reels designed to fit the apparatus of the '120 patent. It was admitted that the reels are not suited for any other use. MDC and DM & E also provide 'repair' services for cutter reels.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the defendants' manufacture and sale of cutter reels constituted contributory infringement of the patent and whether the jury instructions adequately distinguished between permissible repair and impermissible reconstruction of the patented apparatus.

The issue of infringement turned on whether installation and use of the accused reels was 'reconstruction' of the patented apparatus, and thus an infringement of the '120 claims, or merely permissible repair.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles surrounding contributory infringement, specifically under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), which states that selling a component of a patented machine that constitutes a material part of the invention, knowing it is especially made for use in infringement, constitutes contributory infringement.

A person commits contributory infringement when he makes and sells a component of a patented machine for use in practicing a patented process if such component constitutes a material part of the invention, and the person knows that this component is especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the patent and the component is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.

Analysis

The court analyzed the jury's findings in light of the instructions given regarding the distinction between repair and reconstruction. It concluded that the jury was properly instructed to consider whether the actions of the purchasers of the cutter reels amounted to reconstruction of the patented apparatus, which would constitute infringement. The court found that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence.

The court's instructions in this case correctly and fairly presented the law. DM & E and MDC have not shown that no reasonable jury could have found that DM & E's customers were engaging in impermissible reconstruction of the patented apparatus by replacing the cutter reels.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict of infringement against D.M. & E. and MDC, but vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriateness of such interest.

The jury's verdict of infringement is supported by substantial evidence, and is affirmed. No sufficient basis for a new trial has been shown.

Who won?

Lummus Industries, Inc. prevailed in the case as the jury found in its favor regarding the infringement of its patent claims.

Lummus asserts that DM & E and MDC did not raise at the appropriate time the objections they now raise on appeal.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hoffman v. Dorner, 86 A.D.2d 651, 447 N.Y.S.2d 20

Fischer Imaging Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 187 F.3d 1165, 39 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 324, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 4715

Checkers Eight Ltd. Partnership v. Hawkins, 241 F.3d 558

Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 2 Cal.3d 1, 465 P.2d 61, 84 Cal.Rptr. 173, 77 A.L.R.3d 398

Jarrell v. Fort Worth Steel & Mfg. Co., 666 S.W.2d 828