New trial application fails; pre and post judgment interest is awarded
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., et al., Civ. Act. No. 03-241-JJF, November 19, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s Motion For New Trial On Damages Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, Or In The Alternative, Motion For Prejudgment And Post-Judgment Interest will be denied to the extent a new trial is sought and granted to the extent that prejudgment and post-judgment interest is sought. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion For A New Trial On Infringement will be denied because the Court has not modified it claim construction. The Final Judgment Order in this case will be amended to reflect the Court's prejudgment and post-judgment interest rulings.
A jury verdict was entered in favor of plaintiff on October 25, 2004. This action was stayed pending the outcome of other related litigation in California concerning ownership. The stay was lifted after the California litigation was resolved. Plaintiff contends that the Court erred during trial in excluding evidence of the California verdict and evidence of plaintiff’s license agreements. However plaintiff failed to offer any case law supporting the argument that a previous jury verdict may be admitted into evidence to support a patentee's damages claim, and the Court remains persuaded that any probative value of the prior verdict was substantially outweighed by the potential for undue prejudice to defendant. In the alternative, plaintiff requests the Court to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the jury's award. Defendant has not disputed plaintiff's argument that an award of post-judgment interest is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court will award post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. As for prejudgment interest, the Court rejects defendant’s contention that the Court should postpone a determination on prejudgment interest in light of defendant's filing of a Notice of Appeal. Further, the Court has previously awarded prejudgment interest in cases despite a party's stated intention to appeal. It further rejects the contention that prejudgment interest is not warranted because plaintiff unduly delayed in prosecuting this action. The withholding of prejudgment interest based on delay is the exception, not the rule and will not bar an award of prejudgment interest unless the delay causes prejudice. Defendant bore at least some responsibility for the delay due to stipulating to the stay, the Court cannot conclude that these delays warrant the denial of prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest should be based on pre-tax damages calculated at the Prime Rate.
