Relitigation of lost profits was precluded by prior ruling on related patents
Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp., et al., C.A. No. 02-359-MPT, November 12, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff from relitigating lost profits based on issue preclusion is granted. Defendant Universal’s motion to preclude lost profits based on double recovery, judicial estoppel and/or implied license is moot. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.
This action involves technology relating to terrain awareness warning systems in the aviation industry. The Court found after a bench trial that the challenged claims were not invalid or unenforceable and denied defendants’ counterclaims. The Federal Circuit vacated certain claim constructions and remanded for a new infringement determination. It further affirmed the Court’s retention of jurisdiction over withdrawn claims and the decision that section 102 does not erect an on-sale and public use bar. The court finds that plaintiff completely litigated the issue of lost profits against defendant Sandel in prior litigation with related but not the same patents-in-suit. Issue preclusion prevents plaintiff from relitigating its lost profits analysis in this litigation and the court rejects plaintiff’s contention that issue preclusion must be based on the same patents-in-suit. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration on standing to recover lost profits is denied as a rehash of previously rejected arguments. Additional arguments against lost profits are determined to be moot as a result of the first ruling.
