Siemens Medical Solutions Usa, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramins & Plastics, Inc.
637 F.3d 1269
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- PET imaging uses LSO/LYSO scintillators in scanners; Siemens’ patent covers LSO-based detectors; Saint-Gobain’s crystals are 10% Y-containing LYSO; Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; district court instructed preponderance of the evidence for equivalence and allowed consideration of 10% Y LYSO under the 420 patent; jury found infringement under equivalence and awarded $52.3 million, with willfulness denied; district court reduced damages to $44,937,545 (61 sold scanners) and remanded for potential additional damages; Saint-Gobain appealed challenging jury instructions and evidence rulings, Siemens cross-appealed the damages reduction; on appeal the court affirmed most rulings but vacated the damages and remanded for a reasonable royalty assessment on 18 additional infringing scanners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for equivalence with a separately patented feature | Saint-Gobain argues for clear and convincing proof due to separate patentability. | Siemens contends preponderance of the evidence suffices. | Preponderance of the evidence suffices; no heightened burden required. |
| Presumption of validity for the 420 patent | Saint-Gobain seeks a specific instruction that 420 patent is presumptively valid. | Validity not at issue; evidence already acknowledged presumption of validity. | No reversible error; presumption not required as validity was not contested. |
| Exclusion of the 489 patent from evidence | 489 patent relevant to patentability of LYSO and to 420 patent validity. | Risk of jury confusion; patent abandoned and cumulative. | Exclusion not abuse of discretion; error deemed harmless. |
| Damages for 18 additional infringing scanners | Siemens should recover lost profits plus potential royalties; all 79 scanners contemplated. | Evidence speculative for 18 scanners; no royalty asserted for those. | Remand to determine a reasonable royalty for the 18 scanners; award for 61 sold scanners upheld; total damages remanded for royalty addition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (legal sufficiency of jury instructions; clear-and-convincing not required for equity)
- DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc; standard for jury instructions in patent law)
- Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007) (plenary review of JMOL denial; standard of new trial review)
- Rinehimer v. Cemcolift, Inc., 292 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 2002) (plenary/abuse-of-discretion standards in post-trial motions)
- Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc., 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing denial of JMOL/new trial)
- Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (patent infringement burden of proof; preponderance standard)
- Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (burden of proof in infringement cases)
- SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc; burden of proof in patent cases)
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950) (early schema for equivalence inquiry)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1997) (defining function-way-result test and equivalence)
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 283 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1931) (separate patentability may be weighed but does not defeat equivalence)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court 2002) ( Foreseeability and prosecution-history estoppel context for equivalents)
- Hoechst Celanese Corp v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (separate patentability does not presume noninfringement)
- Abraxis Biosci, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 467 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (separate patentability weighed in infringement by equivalence)
- Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co., 221 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (trial court may exclude separate patentability evidence)
- Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (separate patentability does not negate equivalence)
- Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1929) (earlier confirmation of equivalence without heightened burden)