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

damagestrialsummary judgmentwillpatent

damageswillpatent

Related Cases

Probatter Sports, LLC v. Sports Tutor, Inc., 586 F.Supp.3d 80

Facts

Probatter Sports, LLC, the patentee, filed a patent infringement action against Sports Tutor, Inc., alleging that Sports Tutor infringed on its patents related to dynamic braking in baseball-pitching machines. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Probatter, confirming the validity of the patents and finding infringement. Following this, the court held a trial to determine damages, ultimately awarding Probatter a reasonable royalty of 3.5% on the total revenues generated by Sports Tutor from the sale of the infringing machines, along with double damages for willful misconduct and prejudgment interest.

Probatter designed and manufactured a three-wheeled pitching machine, which contained patented features such as regenerative braking, a programmable controller, and horizontal and vertical linear actuators. The two patents at issue are United States Patent Number 6,182,649 (the '649 Patent') and United States Patent Number 6,546,924 (the '924 Patent') (collectively hereinafter, the 'Patents-in-Suit'). The patented feature at issue here is dynamic braking, a feature that causes the rapid deceleration of the wheels inside the ball throwing machine.

Issue

What damages are adequate to compensate for the patent infringement by Sports Tutor, Inc.?

Rule

Analysis

The court applied the hypothetical negotiation approach to determine the reasonable royalty, considering factors such as the royalties received by Probatter for similar patents, the nature of the patented features, and the commercial relationship between the parties. The court found that the infringer's profits were not entirely attributable to the patents-in-suit and that the patentee would have been inclined to enter a licensing agreement due to the lack of competition in their core business. This led to the conclusion that a 3.5% royalty was appropriate.

Conclusion

The court held that Probatter was entitled to a reasonable royalty of 3.5% on the total revenues from the infringing machines, along with double damages for willful misconduct and prejudgment interest.

Probatter is entitled to a reasonable royalty of 3.5% on total revenues Sports Tutor had received for selling infringing machines; Sports Tutor's willful misconduct was egregious and warranted award of double damages; and Probatter is entitled to prejudgment interest at prime rate on reasonable-royalty damages.

Who won?

Probatter Sports, LLC prevailed in this case as the court found that Sports Tutor, Inc. had infringed on its patents. The court awarded Probatter a reasonable royalty of 3.5% on the total revenues from the infringing machines, reflecting the economic value of the patented technology. Additionally, the court determined that Sports Tutor's willful misconduct warranted double damages, emphasizing the egregious nature of the infringement and the infringer's failure to take remedial action despite being aware of the patents.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Vanderbilt University v. DiNardo, 174 F.3d 751, 134 Ed. Law Rep. 766, 14 IER Cases 1702, 1999 Fed.App. 0135P

Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 639, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783, 23 Media L. Rep. 1920

In re Fox River Real Estate Holdings, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 759

Kent State University v. Bradley University, 136 N.E.3d 774, 373 Ed. Law Rep. 352, 2019-Ohio-2088

Telega v. Security Bureau, Inc., 719 A.2d 372