United States Federal Circuit

In a patent infringement case, judgment finding that plaintiff had standing to recover damages and imposing a reasonable royalty rate, as well as precluding plaintiff from recovering damages on a lost profits theory and denying a motion to amend its complaint, is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff was not entitled to recover on a lost profit theory since its subsidiary's profits did not "flow inexorably" to it; 2) a motion to amend to add a co-plaintiff was correctly denied since the co-plaintiff was not an exclusive licensee to the patent in question and therefore lacked standing; and 3) a 7 per cent reasonable royalty rate is affirmed but the case is remanded for recalculation of damages since plaintiff lacked standing from 1996 to 2003.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/02/2008
• Published 06/02/2008

Judges

• Before LINN, CLEVENGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• John B. Pegram, Fish & Richardson P.C., of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellant.   With him on the brief were Autumn J.S. Hwang;  and Michael E. Florey and Kraig A. Jakobsen, of Minneapolis, MN., Kenneth J. Mallin, Bryan Cave LLP, of St. Louis, MO, argued for defendant/counterclaimant-cross appellant.   With him on the brief was K. Lee Marshall.