Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-051 GMS (May 5, 2008).
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion for contempt of Court is granted in part; its post-trial motions for entry of final judgment, enhanced damages, attorneys fees and prejudgment interest are granted in part. Defendants’ motions for JMOL or a new trial as to willfulness and damages are denied
The patents-in-suit relate generally to infant carriers and bassinets. After trial, appeal, and remand, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on damages and willfulness. Following a second trial on the merits, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. On their contempt motion, plaintiff argues that defendant violated the injunction previously entered by the court on August, 28, 2003 by continuing to sell infringing products and by failing to make all reasonable efforts to retrieve infringing products from major retail customers. Defendant concedes that certain sales violated the injunction but argues others did not. The Court enters a contempt order as to the admitted violations but finds insufficient evidence as to the contested sales. In addition, the Court holds defendant in contempt having found defendants’ efforts to retrieve infringing products lacking. Because the jury award included lost profits, the Court does not order them here but does award attorneys’ fees and costs with regard to the contempt motions. However, the Court refuses to include enhanced damages or additional sanctions finding such request to be beyond the scope of available remedies for civil contempt. In addition, the Court denies defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law as to damages and willfulness based on the jury’s findings of fact and because the issue of willfulness is moot in light of the Court’s denial of enhanced damages and sanctions. Moreover, having found that the jury’s damages award was supported by substantial evidence, the Court denies defendant’s motions for new trials. Finally, the Court enters final judgment in favor of the plaintiff along with prejudgment interest calculated at the prime rate, but finds that this is not a case where enhanced damages or attorneys’ fees are appropriate. Defendant’s request for additional briefing as to willfulness is denied as well based on the above findings.
A full copy of the opinion is available here.
