ARTICLE
1 February 2016

Plaintiff Secures Sweeping Jury Verdict In Hotly-Contested Patent Fight

PR
Proskauer Rose LLP

Contributor

The world’s leading organizations and global players choose Proskauer to represent them when they need it the most. Our top tier team of star trial attorneys, acclaimed transactional lawyers and exceptionally talented partners and associates have earned a reputation for the relentless pursuit of perfection and a dauntless pursuit of success.
In its verdict, the jury found that Kaz's products had directly infringed certain device and method claims of the patents-in-suit, and that Kaz was further liable for induced and contributory infringement.
United States Intellectual Property

In a long-running patent fight involving two medical device manufacturers, a Massachusetts jury determined last week that the defendant Kaz had infringed two of plaintiff Exergen's patents relating to temporal thermometers, and that the patents are not invalid. The jury also awarded Exergen nearly $15 million in damages.

In its verdict, the jury found that Kaz's products had directly infringed certain device and method claims of the patents-in-suit, and that Kaz was further liable for induced and contributory infringement. The jury further concluded that Kaz had not shown Exergen's claims to be invalid for lack of adequate written description, lack of enablement, or as obvious in view of the prior art.

The jury apportioned the damages to account for both lost profits and reasonable royalties. Exergen was granted almost $10 million in lost profits damages and close to $5 million in reasonable royalty damages.

However, a few days later Judge Stearns withdrew the judgment, noting that it had been entered in error due to outstanding equitable defenses tried to the court. The court will receive further briefing on the equitable defenses of laches and estoppel in early February.

The case is Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-10628 (D. Mass. Jan. 22, 2015), before Hon. Richard G. Stearns. A copy of the order can be found here.

Plaintiff Secures Sweeping Jury Verdict In Hotly-Contested Patent Fight

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More