Global Traffic Technologies LLC v. Morgan
620 F. App'x 895
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- GTT asserted the ’398 patent against Morgan, KM Enterprises, and STC for EMTRAC GPS preemption system infringement.
- Jury found willful infringement of method claims 16 and 17; total damages awarded were $5,052,118.
- District court construed claim terms, including ‘map of allowed approaches,’ to plain meaning and denied JMOL on infringement.
- Claims involve using GPS data to preempt traffic signals; preemption for emergency vehicles via intersection modules and vehicle modules.
- Appellants challenged claim construction and argued non-infringement/waived challenges; district court upheld impairing arguments on marking, expert testimony, and Morgan’s personal liability.
- Appellants appeal; this court affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for judgment consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of map of allowed approaches | STC seeks movement-based/route data interpretation. | STC contends map requires vehicle movement toward intersection. | Waived; court adopts plain meaning with no movement limitation. |
| Infringement sufficiency of claim 16 | GTT proven every claimed step via EMTRAC system. | Insufficient evidence of all steps performed by accused products. | Substantial evidence supports infringement and indirect infringement findings. |
| Enhanced damages under § 284 | Willful infringement justifies enhanced damages. | Defendants had objective litigation-based invalidity defenses, negating willfulness. | Reversed; first Seagate prong not satisfied due to objective defenses; no enhancement. |
| Marking under § 287 | Packaging marking suffices for the Opticom system. | Only certain components could be marked; packaging should not suffice. | Sustained; substantial evidence supports packaging marking as adequate given the article’s character. |
| Morgan’s personal liability | Morgan personally induced infringement under § 271(b). | Personal liability requires piercing the corporate veil. | Affirmed; Morgan personally liable for induced infringement without piercing the veil. |
Key Cases Cited
- i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (clear and convincing evidence standard; substantial evidence review for infringement)
- Seagate Tech., LLC v. West Digital, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (two-part willfulness test; objective recklessness)
- Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (total record evidence considered for willfulness; litigation defenses considered)
- Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (corporate officers may be liable for induced infringement without piercing the corporate veil)
- Trek Leather, Inc. v. United States, 767 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (piercing corporate veil and personal liability principles)
- Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (character of the article for marking and substantial compliance)
- Sessions v. Romandka, 145 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1896) (character of the patented article determines marking requirements)
- Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (advertent reliance on testimony and jury instructions on infringement)