Arctic Cat v. Bombadier was decided on December 7, 2017 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. Before trial, defendant Bombadier unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on several issues, including that plaintiff Artic Cat’s licensee failed to mark its products. The jury found the asserted patents not invalid, found willful infringement by Bombadier, and awarded Arctic Cat a reasonable royalty ($102.54 per unit), finding that damages began before Bombadier received actual notice of infringement. The district court then trebled the damages; denied Bombadier’s renewed motion for JMOL on validity, marking, damages, and willfulness; and granted Arctic Cat’s motion for an ongoing royalty ($205.08 per unit). Bombadier appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of JMOL as to obviousness, the jury’s royalty rate, and willfulness; affirmed the award of treble damages and of an ongoing royalty; vacated the denial of JMOL as to marking; and remanded.
Under § 287(a), a patentee who makes or sells a patented article must mark his articles or notify infringers of his patent in order to recover damages. If a patentee who makes or sells his patented articles has not marked them, he or she “is not entitled to damages before the date of actual notice.” A patentee’s licensees must also comply with the requirement.
Here, the Artic Cat license stated that the licensee had “no obligation or requirement to mark” its licensed products. The licensee sold products, and Artic Cat made no effort to ensure the products were marked. The only dispute between the parties was whether the licensee’s products covered the patent claims such that they were required to be marked.
The burden of proving compliance with marking “is and at all time remains on the patentee.” An alleged infringer has the initial burden of production to articulate the “products it believes are unmarked patented articles.” This low bar was satisfied by Bombadier. Bombadier introduced Artic Cat’s licensing agreement, 14 unmarked licensee products, and expert testimony that the products practiced the patents. After the accused infringer satisfies its burden, the patentee has the burden to prove that the products do not comply with the marking statute, that they do not fall within the patent claims.
The district court erred when it placed the burden of proof on Bombadier. “The alleged infringer need not produce claim charts to meet its initial burden of identifying products.” The Federal Circuit thus vacated and remanded the decision on marking. Because Bombadier met its initial burden of production, Artic Cat must show on remand that the licensee products “do not practice the asserted patents.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting damages expert testimony showing that a later-developed system was sufficiently comparable technology, establishing a value benchmark for Bombadier’s allegedly infringing earlier-developed systems.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an ongoing royalty rate higher than the jury rate. It is permissible for a district court to award ongoing royalty rates “at or near the infringer’s alleged profit margin.” Once a judgment of validity and infringement has been entered ,” the calculus is markedly different because different economic factors are involved.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by trebling damages. The jury willfulness finding was supported by substantial evidence that Bombadier “knew about the patents before they issued, conducted only a cursory analysis of the patents, waited years before seeking advice of qualified and competent counsel, and unsuccessfully tried to buy the asserted patents through a third party.” Further, the district court did not err in instructing the jury that “Arctic Cat must prove by clear and convincing evidence that BRP actually knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent.” The should-have-known standard does not contradict Halo. Lastly the district court explained its decision to treble damages in a “thorough and well-reasoned opinion.” The trebling was appropriate despite that “the district court did not allow the parties to brief the issue.”
Whatever be the age of man, he certainly likes to viagra pharmacy enjoy sex. Who are they out cheap tadalafil pills with? Do you have irregular menstrual cycles, short or long and heavy periods? These can be symptoms of the ED as well. appalachianmagazine.com buy vardenafil levitra Best Ways To Raise Kids Be Patient. Exploring the various options can help you to make the elimination complete and easier without discount generic levitra keeping your body at the discomfort level.