Exmark Manufacturing v. Briggs & Stratton is a nonprecedential case decided on October 6, 2020, on appeal from the District of Nebraska. Following grant of summary judgment of infringement and no invalidity, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found that Defendant Briggs willfully infringed Plaintiff Exmark’s patent. The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of no invalidity and the ultimate damages award, remanding for reconsideration of invalidity and, if necessary, a retrial on willfulness and damages. On remand, the district court again ruled that the asserted claim was not invalid. Following another jury verdict on damages, the district court awarded enhanced damages for willfulness. The district court also awarded prejudgment interest at the lower U.S. Treasury rate instead of the higher prime rate. The district court then granted Exmark’s motion to amend the judgment by altering the prejudgment interest rate, “maintaining the lower U.S. Treasury rate for the six-year period before the lawsuit was filed and applying the higher prime interest rate to the nine-year period post-suit filing.” Briggs appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of no invalidity, affirmed the judgment of infringement, and affirmed the adjusting of the prejudgment interest rate.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in adjusting the prejudgment interest rate. “[F]ollowing the first jury trial, Exmark moved for prejudgment interest in the amount of $8,545,058, representing interest at the prime rate applied to damages accrued prior to the date of judgment.” “The district court instead awarded prejudgment interest of $1,540,614 at the lower U.S. Treasury rate to penalize Exmark for its delay in filing suit, which,” as the district court found, “contributed, to some extent, to a longer period of prejudgment interest.” “After the second jury trial, the district court again awarded prejudgment interest at the reduced U.S. Treasury rate, and Exmark moved under Rule 59(e) to adjust the prejudgment interest.” “Adopting Exmark’s proposed bifurcation of the prejudgment interest award into pre-suit and post-suit time periods, the district court assigned the reduced U.S. Treasury rate to the pre-suit time period while awarding the prime rate to the post-suit time period.”
If the blood does not reach buy discount viagra in proper amount near the genitals, one cannot be able to gain erection. Treatment of ED usually tadalafil 100mg involves managing the underlying cause, which may include dealing with heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, neurological disorder, stress, depression, and anxiety. The dosage purchase cialis depends upon how severe the disease is. In normal cipla cialis canada language it is the inability to maintain an erection for satisfactory sexual intercourse.
This was not an abuse of discretion. “The district court reasonably adjusted the prejudgment interest award to reflect that the litigation had continued for longer than the district court had anticipated when it initially awarded the lower interest rate in 2016.” “Because the lower interest rate initially awarded was intended to penalize Exmark for its delay in filing suit, it became less representative as more time passed after the suit was filed.”