Upon examination of the evidence weighed by the jury, and despite a showing that the defendant had obtained advice of legal counsel as to non-infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the jury’s verdict of willful infringement and the district court’s award of enhanced damages. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Company, Inc., Case Nos. 05-1105, -1325, -1366, -1399 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2006) (Gajarsa, J.).
Liquid Dynamics, the plaintiff, obtained a jury verdict of willful infringement of its patent relating to a system of pumps that stirs mixtures of solids and liquids in large tanks. The district court trebled the jury’s damage award based upon the jury’s finding of willfulness and the defendant’s behavior as a litigant.
In June 2000, Liquid Dynamics confronted Vaughan with allegations of infringement. Vaughan then consulted with patent counsel to evaluate the potential claim provided its counsel with two computational fluid dynamics studies that analyzed the flow patterns in Vaughan’s tanks. Liquid Dynamics presented evidence, in support of its willful infringement claim, that Vaughan’s opinion from counsel was flawed, and Vaughan had directly copied Liquid Dynamic’s engineering drawings by hiring a former Liquid Dynamic’s engineer.
The Court, in affirming the verdict of willful infringement, found it reasonable that Vaughan’s opinion from its patent counsel was insufficient to show good faith belief that its activities were not in violation of Liquid Dynamic’s patent rights. It found flaws in the factual basis of the opinion and evidence that Vaughan copied Liquid Dynamic’s drawings. The Court rejected Vaughan’s attempt to discount evidence of copying by noting changes in the design and stated that a jury could reasonably infer copying because the modifications were insubstantial to the patented invention.
With respect to Vaughan’s opinion from counsel, the Court determined that a reasonable jury could discount the opinion based on Vaughn’s concealment of evidence from counsel. In particular, the Court found the omission of vertical vector plots of fluid flow from the computation fluid dynamics studies Vaughan provided patent counsel coupled with evidence of copying was sufficient to affirm the verdict of willful infringement and the district court’s enhancement of damages.
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.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.