Saint-Gobain Objects to Xinyi's Motion for New Trial, Judgment,
in Ongoing $24 Million Patent Infringement Suit
June 15, 2010
Saint-Gobain has filed an objection to Xinyi's request for a judgment
as a matter of law or a new trial in the ongoing $24 million patent
infringement suit it filed in 2006. Xinyi Glass North America and
Xinyi Automobile Glass Co. had filed a motion in early May requesting
that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio hold
vacate or modify the jury's $22 million damages verdict, or that
the court hold a new trial in the patent infringement suit Saint-Gobain
filed against it in November 2006. (CLICK
HERE for related story.)
First, Xinyi had alleged in its motion that the correct construction
of "centering" requires an even gap all around the periphery
of the glazing, and that Saint-Gobain failed to prove infringement
on this point, as it had defined "centering" as "non-skewed"
or "straight" during the course of the trial. However,
Saint-Gobain argues in its response that Xinyi's argument was rejected
by the Court early in the case.
In addition, the defendant had argued that it shouldn't be charged
damages for the time during which it was unaware of the patents
involved in the case, and that Xinyi officials didn't know about
the patents involved until it was notified about these in May 2005.
However, Saint-Gobain argues that this is a new argument on the
part of Xinyi and a "required pre-verdict motion" is required
before a new argument can be brought forth.
"Also, actual knowledge of the patent is not required,"
writes Saint-Gobain in its recent motion.
Xinyi also claimed in its motion that Saint-Gobain "failed
to prove that 277,645 ... windshields [in question] were actually
installed in the [United States] during the term of [the patents]."
Company officials also said that while Saint-Gobain based its case
on Xinyi's sale of the windshields in the United States, the company
didn't address "actual installations of those products by installers
in the [United States]."
In response to this point, Saint-Gobain claims that Xinyi president
Antonio Tam, along with other witnesses, "testified that the
windshields were meant to be and were installed in automobiles."
And, on Xinyi's assertion that the jury reached a "seriously
erroneous result," Saint-Gobain writes, "Xinyi cannot
demonstrate with respect to any of the issues raised in its motion
that reasonable persons could not have reached a verdict in favor
of Saint-Gobain. The evidence was overwhelming in Saint-Gobain's
favor and, in view of the substantial deference owed to the jury
verdict, Xinyi's motion must be denied."
At press time, the court had not yet ruled on Xinyi's motion, and
it had filed a second motion for an extension of time to file a
response to Saint-Gobain's objection until Friday, June 18.
The court had previously ruled that Xinyi owes Saint-Gobain damages
of approximately $22 million, along with attorney's fees of nearly
$2 million and court costs totaling $384,882.99 for a total of more
than $24 million. The trial was held last November, and the final
damages figure was released this April.
In the original suit, Saint-Gobain alleged that Xinyi infringed
on two of its patents, one titled "Spacer for Windshield Bracket"
(known in court documents as the '669 patent) and one titled "Method
of Centering Windshield Glazings" (referred to as the '395
patent). The '669 patent is said to be for the "first spacer
being provided with means for centering and aligning the glazing
upon the bracket," while the '395 patent is described as follows,
"whereby said lip portion of the spacer contacts said bracket
to provide a force for centering said glazing thereon, which force
is sufficient to maintain centering of the glazing on the bracket."
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
HERE to subscribe to AGRR magazine.