Case Cite

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:01-CV-0485, slip op. (M.D. Pa. July 17, 2013).

IPDQ Commentary

The district court in Arlington Industries allowed Plaintiff to recover supplemental lost profits from the date of judgment to the date the patent expired, but the court restricted those damages to the accused products actually before the jury.

Case Summary

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking supplemental lost profit damages for infringement from the date of the judgment to the date the patent expired. Id. at 1-2. Defendant opposed, arguing (1) the accused products were no longer competing in a two-supplier market, and (2) the assumption that Plaintiff would have made 100% of the accused sales was no longer valid in light of changed market conditions. Id. at 3.

After reciting case law on lost profit damages, the district court granted the motion, finding Plaintiff was entitled to supplemental lost profit damages:

  • At trial, Plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to support lost profits, including (1) the similarity of both parties’ customer case, and (2) no other supplier sold competing products. Id. at 7. In light of the “two supplier” case law and the Panduit test, this evidence was adequate to support a “reasonable probability” that Plaintiff would have made additional sales but for Defendant’s infringement. Id. at 8.
  • Defendant’s opposition to the motion failed. The record was devoid of any new products not presented to the jury during the trial. Thus, the parties continued to compete in a two-supplier market. Id. at 9. Defendant made other arguments that were no more than a rehash of issues already presented at trial. Id. at 9-10. Defendant’s argument focused on the decline in market sales and did not address how such a decline would affect Plaintiff’s entitlement to lost profits as opposed to the amount of lost profits. Id. at 10.
  • Plaintiff attempted to include accused products not originally included in the damages award. Id. at 12. In light of this discrepancy, the court required additional briefing on the amount of damages. Id. at 12-13.