Hafco Foundry and Machine v. GMS Mine Repair was decided on March 16, 2020 on appeal from the Southern District of West Virginia. The jury found defendant GMS liable for willful infringement and awarded damages of $123,650 to plaintiff Hafco. On Hafco’s post-trial motion, the district court entered a permanent injunction against infringement. On GMS’ motion, the court “remitted the damages award to zero” because the award did not represent Hafco’s lost profits. The court offered a new trial on damages but not on infringement, and stayed the new trial pending this appeal. GMS appealed. Hafco did not cross appeal any issue relating to damages.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgement of infringement and the denial of a new trial on infringement, and remanded “for further proceedings … including any proceedings necessary for a final judgment on damages.”
order levitra online secretworldchronicle.com Some of them face physical exhaustion, while some face mentally exhausted. Each and every one craves to keep their genital erected for a longer period of cialis for sale canada time making it impossible to reach orgasm.Having impotence (Erectile Dysfunction) may not only be affected sexually but also mentally, emotionally and socially. The generic viagra cipla look at these guys only thing left will be to acknowledge we simply cannot modify others; we can just have to change ourselves and our personal reactions to substances, people, locations and things. When can one stop secretworldchronicle.com viagra online using it?At times, you many use kamagra, and you notice that more and more hair is falling off your head, then I guess you are pretty much worried.
Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the damages issue should be resolved. “The jury awarded damages of $123,650, measured by GMS’s infringing sales. Hafco’s lost profits were $110,000. These facts were attested at the trial, and are not disputed.” “The district court agreed with GMS, on post-trial motion, that the $123,650 jury damages award does not under any conceivable view of the evidence represent Hafco’s lost profits,” remitted the damages to zero, and offered a new trial on damages. Hafco argued that “any remittitur of the damage award should have been to an amount no less than $110,000.00.” Judge Newman would have “correct[ed] the district court’s judgment, and remit the damages award to the undisputed amount of $110,000” because “[a] new trial, on undisputed facts, is not needed to serve the purposes of the jury verdict.”