Jury award is reduced from $52.3 to $44.9 to comport with the evidence
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Civ. No. 07-190-SLR, May 15 , 2009.
Robinson J. Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and remittitur is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest is granted.
Defendant moves for JMOL or for a new trial and remittitur following a jury verdict for infringement in the amount of $52.3 million. The technology at issue relates to PET nuclear medicine imaging. The critical issue at trial was whether defendant’s 10% Y LYSO crystals represent a substantial difference over the claimed LSO crystals so as to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendant claims that the Court’s denial of its request for an instruction that the ‘420 patent was valid and that plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate equivalency requires clear and convincing evidence was erroneous under Festo. The Court disagrees noting that no case has applied a higher standard of proof in such circumstances. Additionally, the exclusion of certain expert testimony regarding the manufacturing process where such evidence is not relevant to the infringement analysis was proper. Next, referencing the expert testimony of Jarosz and Woodford, the Court finds that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s findings on lost profits. Plaintiff did not meet its burden as to the sale of 18 scanners prior to the expiration of the patent and the award is reduced accordingly. Prejudgment interest compounded quarterly at the prime rate is awarded. Post-judgment interest equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the calendar week preceding is awarded.
