Case Cite

Synqor, Inc. V. Artesyn Tech., Inc., No. 2:11CV444, Slip op. (E.D. Tex. May 31, 2013)

IPDQ Commentary

In Synqor, a defendant’s attempt to distance itself from other defendants prior to a trial on post-injunction damages came up short when the magistrate judge concluded a combined bench trial was more efficient and confusion was unlikely.

Case Summary

Following a jury verdict of infringement and entry of a permanent injunction, Defendant Power-One, one of several defendants, took a “very different approach” toward continuing sales of accused products. Id., slip op. at 1. Power-One did not enter into an indemnification agreement with its customer. Rather, Power-One decided to forego U.S. sales, and took steps to ensure its products that were sold outside the U.S. were not incorporated into systems designated for the U.S. Id.

Power-One moved for a separate trial on post-injunction damages, arguing its defense presented individualized issues requiring separate consideration and that it would be prejudiced by potential confusion, especially if an advisory jury was used. Id.

The magistrate judge denied the motion, noting that the matter was set for a bench trial and that no advisory jury would be used. Id., slip op. at 2. The court said it would not be confused, and there were substantial overlapping issues common to the defendants best resolved in a combined trial. Id.