Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.
702 F.3d 1351
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Presidio sues ATC for infringing the ’356 patent with ATC’s 545L capacitors; jury finds willful infringement and awards lost profits
- District court denies JMOL and grants/denies various post-trial remedies including ongoing royalty and false marking penalties
- PTO reexamination affirmed patentability without amendments; ATC contends the 545L does not meet the “substantially monolithic dielectric body” limitation
- Presidio seeks permanent injunction; district court denies injunction but imposes ongoing royalty while denying others
- Appeals court affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings; false marking judgment vacated due to AIA amendments; remand on injunction and royalties
- Record shows direct competition between BB and 545L capacitors and substantial evidence supporting infringement and Panduit factors for lost profits
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Literal infringement of ’356 claims by 545L | Presidio: 545L meets all claim elements | ATC: 545L lacks “substantially monolithic dielectric body” | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports infringement |
| Construction and application of “substantially monolithic dielectric body” | Presidio expert supported monolithic interpretation | ATC: 545L lacks seams and not monolithic | Affirmed: jury properly weighed testimony and found substantially monolithic |
| Lost profits under Panduit four-factor test | Demand and lack of noninfringing substitutes shown by BB vs 545L | ATC argues market distinctions and substitutes undermine Panduit factors | Affirmed: first two factors satisfied; substantial evidence of demand and lack of substitutes |
| Permanent injunction and irreparable harm | Irreparable harm due to direct competition and unwillingness to license | No irreparable harm given monetary damages suffice | Vacated: remanded to reweigh four-factor test in light of record evidence of irreparable harm |
| False marking under AIA retroactivity | ATC liable under amended §292(b) and retroactive changes apply | Amendments apply retroactively; private false-marking claims curtailed | Applied AIA amendments; vacated false-marking judgment; moot as to qui tam claim; remand on §292(b) merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (instruction on literal infringement requires every claim limitation present)
- Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (demand need not negate every noninfringing possibility for lost profits)
- Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Panduit four-factor test for lost profits)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions and equitable discretion)
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (antitrust/like considerations relevant to injunctive relief)
- Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (irreparable harm and competition considerations in injunctive analysis)
- Inogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for injunction decisions)
- Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for ongoing royalties)
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standard for JMOL after jury verdict)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (JMOL standards and evidentiary review)
- Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (legal standard on review of legal conclusions)