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

lawsuitdamagestrialmotionpatentcorporation
damagestrialmotionpatentcorporation

Related Cases

Smith v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 223 Ill.2d 441, 860 N.E.2d 332, 307 Ill.Dec. 678
View Case »
Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products, Inc., 291 F.3d 1317, 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1846
View Case »
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc., 56 F.3d 1538, 64 USLW 2032, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065
View Case »
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1190
View Case »
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 682675
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp., 761 F.Supp. 1420, 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001

Facts

Micro Motion, Inc., a Colorado corporation, holds a patent for Coriolis mass flowmeters and has been manufacturing and selling these devices since 1977. Exac Corporation, a California corporation, began designing and marketing similar flowmeters in 1984. Micro Motion filed a lawsuit against Exac for patent infringement, claiming that Exac's flowmeters infringed on its patents. After a jury initially found no infringement, a new trial was granted, and the court ultimately found that Exac had infringed on Micro Motion's patents, leading to a damages phase to determine the financial impact of the infringement.

Issue

Did Exac Corporation infringe on Micro Motion, Inc.'s patents for Coriolis mass flowmeters, and what damages are owed as a result?

Did Exac Corporation infringe on Micro Motion, Inc.'s patents for Coriolis mass flowmeters, and what damages are owed as a result?

Rule

To receive an award of lost profits in a patent infringement case, the patent owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for the infringement, it would have made the sales made by the infringer or charged higher prices for its patented products. The court may estimate damages based on reasonable inferences from the evidence, and any doubts regarding the amount must be resolved against the infringer. Additionally, lost profits due to price erosion are compensable damages.

To receive an award of lost profits, the patent owner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for the infringement, it either would have made the sales made by the infringer, charged higher prices for its patented products, or both.

Analysis

The court found that Micro Motion established the necessary elements to prove lost profits, including demand for its patented product, absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes, and its capability to manufacture and market the flowmeters. The evidence showed that Micro Motion would have captured a significant portion of Exac's sales had the infringement not occurred. The court also determined that Micro Motion suffered price erosion due to Exac's competition, which forced it to forego potential price increases.

Once the Court determines that the infringer has indeed injured the patent owner, the Court may estimate the extent of the patent owner's damage by drawing a 'just and reasonable inference' from the evidence: 'The determination of a damage award is not an exact science, and 'the amount need not be proven with unerring precision.' The trial court is required to approximate, if necessary, the amount to which the patent owner is entitled.

Conclusion

The court awarded Micro Motion a total of $26,231,006 in damages, which included lost profits from sales and price erosion, as well as reasonable royalties.

The Court awards Micro Motion prejudgment interest of $5,409,481 on these damages, making a total award of $26,231,006.

Who won?

Micro Motion, Inc. prevailed in the case against Exac Corporation. The court found that Exac's infringement of Micro Motion's patents caused significant financial harm, justifying a substantial damages award. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated that Micro Motion had a strong market presence and would have made a considerable number of sales but for Exac's infringement.

Micro Motion, Inc. prevailed in the case against Exac Corporation. The court found that Exac's infringement of Micro Motion's patents caused significant financial harm, justifying a substantial damages award.

You must be