March 20, 2020
Authored and Edited by Brooke M. Wilner; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
After finding no error in the jury instructions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding of infringement in Hafco Foundry and Machine Co., Inc. v. GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc., No. 2018-1904 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2020).
Hafco sued GMS alleging design patent infringement. At trial, the jury was instructed that a design patent is infringed if the overall appearance of the challenged article is substantially the same as that of the patented design. The jury found that GMS had willfully infringed and awarded damages of $123,650. However, the court found that the damages award exceeded Hafco’s lost profits, remitted the award to zero, and offered a new trial on damages.
On appeal, GMS argued that the jury instructions were erroneous and that a new trial is warranted. First, GMS argued that the jury should have been instructed that small differences between the accused and the patented design will preclude infringement. The Court rejected this argument explaining that the jury was correctly instructed because the patented and accused designs do not have to be identical for a finding of patent infringement. Second, GMS contended the jury should have been instructed to familiarize itself with prior art. The Federal again rejected GMS’s argument, noting that GMS did not present any prior art to the jury at trial nor did it propose this jury instruction. Because Hafco did not appeal the remittitur of damages, the Court did not address the issue.
Judge Newman concurred in the court’s decision but wrote separately regarding the damages issue. In Judge Newman’s opinion, a remittitur to $110,000—Hafco’s lost profits—was more appropriate than a remittitur to zero, because it more reasonably implements the jury’s intent.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.