Case Cite

Electro-Mechanical Corp. v. Power Dist. Products, Inc., No. 1:11CV00071, 2013 WL 4816944 (W.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2013).

IPDQ Commentary

The district court in Electro-Mechanical strictly interpreted LaserDynamics to toss a jury’s damages verdict.

Case Summary

After a trial in which the jury awarded damages to Plaintiff, Defendant sought JMOL or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages or remittitur. Id. at *1, *4. After deciding Defendant failed to preserve its right to JMOL, the court granted the motion for a new trial on damages or remittitur.

Plaintiff based its damages on the sale of the entire accused system and not the infringing device alone. Id. at *2, *6.

The district court concluded Plaintiff’s trial evidence was insufficient to invoke the EMVR under LaserDynamics:

  • Plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence that any customer purchased the accused system for the sole purpose of obtaining the patented device. Id. at *6.
  • At most, Plaintiff’s evidence showed some customers seeking a system purchased the accused system containing the patented feature instead of systems without the device. Id.
  • Plaintiff’s damages expert was unaware of any customer that already owned a working system without the patented feature that upgraded the system to obtain the patented device. Id.
  • Plaintiff’s damages expert confirmed customers first decided to purchase a system, then elected to include the patented device.

Since the jury relied on the improper calculation of Plaintiff’s damages expert and awarded damages based on the EMVR, the award was excessive and subject to remittitur. Id. at *2.