Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
July 10, 1992, Decided
[***1428] [*818] NIES, Chief Judge.
Portec, Inc., appeals from the May 25, 1990, final judgment, entered upon a jury verdict, of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 88-29-JRR, holding Portec liable for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,197,194 (the '194 patent) and U.S. Design Patent No. 263,836 (the '836 patent), and awarding The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. (collectively Read) treble damages and attorney fees. The district court's opinion denying Portec's motion for JNOV is reported at Read Corp. v. Portec Inc., 748 F. Supp. 1078 (D. Del. 1990). [**2] The district court's opinion granting Read's motion for treble damages and attorney fees is reported at Read Corp. v. Portec Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1243 (D. Del. 1990). We affirm the judgment with respect to liability for infringement of the '194 patent, reverse the judgment with respect to liability for infringement of the '836 patent and the enhancement of damages, vacate the award with respect to attorney fees, and remand for modification of the injunction and reconsideration of the award of Read's attorney fees in light of this opinion.
James L. Read is the president of Read and the named inventor in both the '194 and '836 patents. The '194 patent is directed to a portable loam screening apparatus for separating fine earth material from coarser materials. The '836 patent is directed to an ornamental design of such a screening apparatus. Below are figures from each of the patents: [***1429]
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
970 F.2d 816 *; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15781 **; 23 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1426 ***
THE READ CORPORATION and F.T. READ & SONS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PORTEC, INC., d/b/a PORTEC/KOLBERG DIVISION, Defendant-Appellant.
Subsequent History: As Amended July 13, 1992. Petition for Rehearing Denied and Suggestion In Banc Declined September 23, 1992, Reported at 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23811.
Prior History: [**1] Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Judge Roth
Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, and REMANDED
infringement, patent, wheels, district court, frame, willful, damages, screening, movable, attorney's fees, footpad, enhanced damage, enhancement, retractable, ornamental, doctrine of equivalents, misconduct, apparatus, literally, tall, advice, hitch, substantial evidence, treble damages, prior art, limitations, estoppel, drawings, features, designs
Civil Procedure, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict, General Overview, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Infringing Acts, Doctrine of Equivalents, Elements, Equivalence, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Claim Interpretation, Jury Instructions, Criminal Law & Procedure, Juries & Jurors, Province of Court & Jury, Jury Instructions, Reversible Errors, Legal Issues, Prosecution History Estoppel, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Design Patents, Subject Matter, Design Patents, Functionality, Ornamentality Requirement, Indirect Infringement, Burdens of Proof, Remedies, Damages, Collateral Assessments, Increased Damages, Patentholder Losses, Punitive Damages, Equivalence Limits, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Dicta, Family Law, Marital Termination & Spousal Support, Costs & Attorney Fees, Attorney Fees