Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton was decided on January 12, 2018 on appeal from the District of Nebraska. The invention related to a lawn mower having an improved device for directing airflow and grass clippings during operation. The district court ruled on summary judgment that asserted claim 1 was not invalid for obviousness, anticipation, or indefiniteness. The jury then awarded $24,280,330 in compensatory damages, and found willful infringement. Following trial, the district court denied Briggs’ motion on laches, and for a new trial on damages and willfulness. The district court also granted plaintiff Exmark’s motion for enhanced damages based on Briggs’ willful infringement, and doubled the jury award. Briggs appealed.
The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of no invalidity, vacated the jury finding of willfulness, vacated the damages award, vacated the enhanced damages award, and remanded.
The district court did not err by permitting Exmark to use the sales price of the accused mowers as the royalty base instead of the sales price of the flow control devices. Although Exmark was required to apportion the reasonable royalty to capture the “incremental value of the patented invention,” apportionment can be addressed in a variety of ways. “So long as Exmark adequately and reliably apportions between the improved and conventional features of the accused mower, using the accused mower as a royalty base and apportioning through the royalty rate is an acceptable methodology.” Using the lawn mower sales as the royalty base was particularly appropriate here because the asserted claim was directed to the infringing product as a whole, not a single component of a multi-component product. “Sophisticated parties routinely enter into license agreements that base the value of the patented invention as a percentage of the commercial products’ sales price.”
The district court abused its discretion in denying Briggs’ motion for a new trial on damages. Exmark’s damages expert’s opinion was inadmissible because it failed to adequately tie the proposed royalty rate to the facts of the case. The expert concluded that the parties would have agreed to a 5% royalty rate on the sales of the accused lawn mowers as the value for the improved airflow devices, but she did not explain how she calculated this rate using the Georgia Pacific factors. It’s not sufficient to list the advantage of the invention without specifically tying those advantages to the proposed royalty rate. “To sufficiently tie the advantages of the patented baffles to the royalty rate in this case, Exmark’s expert was required to explain the extent to which they factored into the value of the lawn mower and her 5% royalty rate.” The expert also failed to conduct an analysis indicating the degree to which non-patented elements of the lawn mower impacted her suggested 5% royalty rate. “Merely concluding that other components do not affect the value of the accused mower amounts to nothing more than speculation.” The Federal Circuit thus vacated the damages award and remanded for a new trial on damages.
As for evidentiary issues, (1) the district court abused its discretion by holding that prior art is relevant to damages only to the extent the prior art was commercialized; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Exmark’s delay in filing suit for infringement is not relevant to damages.
There is no need to worry because working with professionals is easy and reliable. seanamic.com cialis no prescription buy levitra from india Aside from being invasive, the healing time is lengthy as well. In the last 10 years after the discovery of levitra generic cialis, every year tremendous increase in the demand of the cialis is being guaranteed by the manufacturer.cialis sale was mainly introduced by the Pfizer for the treatment of the hypertension and angina pectoris. Here is the comparison between the two drugs. free get viagra
The Federal Circuit remanded for the district court to determine whether a new trial on willfulness was necessary. Under Halo, “the entire willfulness determination is to be decided by the jury.” In this case, the district court excluded certain prior art from the willfulness trial on its determination that Briggs’ litigation defenses were unreasonable. The district court decision does not comport with Halo “[t]o the extent that decision excluded evidence relevant to Briggs’ state of mind at the time of the accused infringement.” On remand, the district court must reconsider its decision to exclude evidence of the prior art during the willfulness trial.
The district court didn’t err by dismissing the laches defense. Exmark only seeks damages for the six-year period prior to filing the complaint. “[L]aches is no longer a defense against damages for patent infringement that occurred within 35 U.S.C. § 286‘s six-year statute of limitations period.”
Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)