Page 41 - Intellectual Property Disputes
P. 41

plaintiff, along with the defendant, controlled 95% of the market and, therefore, a two-supplier market
               existed. The court accepted the plaintiff’s calculation of damages based upon lost sales of an entire
               burner assembly as well as a full set of logs. The defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiff had failed
               to prove the parties were competing for sales of two-burner installations, the calculation of the plaintiff’s
               margin was inaccurate, and certain sales should be excluded because they were returns from distributors.
               The district court’s damages theory was reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual findings were
               reviewed for clear error. The Federal Circuit found that the patentee provided sufficient evidence
               regarding the probability that the sales would have been made but for the infringement. "By coming
               forward with no quantitative evidence to rebut this testimony, Peterson left itself open to the inference
               reasonably drawn by the district court."  fn 36   On the issue of the returns from distributors, the court found
               that no lost sale existed upon which to base a damages award because no act of infringement occurred
               and vacated the award on this limited basis. The case was remanded to reexamine and recompute
               damages, if necessary, to exclude the returned units from the calculation of damages.

               In Calico Brand, Inc. and Honson Marketing Group, Inc. v. Ameritek Imports, Inc. and Acme
               International Enterprises, Inc., the district court supported a claim for lost profits damages, noting that
               the second Panduit factor can be satisfied by applying the market share approach in instances when non-
               infringing alternatives exist. However, on appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the lost profits award,
               concluding that application of the market share approach does not necessarily apply if the plaintiff
               cannot establish a reasonable probability that it would have made additional sales.

                       We hold that Calico failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, in the absence of the
                       infringing Ameritek lighters, Acme and/or its customers would have purchased Calico lighters
                       rather than the non-infringing alternatives...Under these facts, Calico’s failure to establish that its
                       lost sales were a direct result of Acme’s sales of infringing lighters, and not due to the sales of
                       non-infringing lighters, precludes the recovery of lost profits.

                       ...Given the crowded nature of this market, there is no reasonable basis to support an assumption
                       that Calico would have made additional sales "but for" the presence of Ameritek lighters. The
                       record evidence shows that there were 20 to 30 brands of utility lighters comparable to the
                       Ameritek product.

                       ...

                       At trial, [Acme] offered unrebutted testimony that Acme had an established practice of
                       purchasing utility lighters from a California manufacturer that were interchangeable with the
                       Calico lighters. J.A. 184; see also J.A. 189 (testifying that there were a variety of other suppliers
                       whose utility lighters did not differ from the Ameritek product in terms of price, functionality, or
                       consumer preference). A seamless substitution of the asserted product with a non-infringing,
                       alternative product that is sourced from a third party supplier, is evidence of acceptable non-
                       infringing alternatives under the second Panduit factor.









        fn 36   Id. The court also rejected "Peterson’s arguments regarding the profit margins on each lost sale. The district court based its
        findings on both documentary and testimonial evidence, and Peterson has failed to convince us that these findings were clearly
        erroneous."


                       © 2020, Association of International Certified Professional Accountants                    37
   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46