Powell v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

Last updated
Powell v. Home Depot USA, Inc.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameMichael S. Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc.
DecidedNovember 14, 2011
Citation(s)663 F.3d 1221; 100 U.S.P.Q.2d 1742
Case history
Prior history715 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2010)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Richard Linn, Timothy B. Dyk, Sharon Prost
Case opinions
MajorityProst, joined by Linn
Concur/dissentDyk

Powell v. The Home Depot USA, Inc., 663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011), [1] was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the issue of patent infringement on a "safe hands" device that Michael Powell, an independent contractor for Home Depot, created in response to injuries to the hands of associates using in-store radial arm saws. Powell invented and patented a device that eliminated the risk of injury. The Home Depot refused to pay Powell for the device and began installing the safety device on its saws without permission. In 2007, Powell sued The Home Depot for patent infringement. After a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Powell was awarded damages totaling $20.8 million. [2]

Contents

Case

The lawsuit said that The Home Depot alerted Powell of a safety issue with the saw that was causing injuries. Powell, who had been a 20-year independent contractor with the company, came up with the solution, a "Safe Hands" device, to protect Home Depot's employees. After a dispute about pricing, The Home Depot showed Safe Hands to another supplier and asked them to copy it. This device was installed in more than 2,000 Home Depot stores nationwide.

A key piece of evidence in the case was a photo of a former Home Depot executive carrying tape measures, pencils and pads and examining one of Powell's prototypes that had been installed at a Georgia store.

In 2007, Powell sued The Home Depot for patent infringement. At a jury trial in Federal Court in West Palm Beach, Florida Powell was represented by Tripp Scott, P.A. attorneys Peter Herman [3] and Alexander Brown [4] and by Mayback & Hoffman, P.A. attorneys Gregory L. Mayback, [5] Catherine F. Hoffman, [6] and Scott D. Smiley. [7]

Decision

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Powell and awarded him $15 million. [2] The jury also found that The Home Depot's infringement was willful, which allowed the judge to augment the damages award to an additional $5.8 million, plus prejudgment interest accruing since May 16, 2006 – the date Powell's patent issued. The total damages awarded were over $24.5 million. [2]

In 2011, Home Depot appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, willfulness, and damages. [1] [8] They also challenged the district court's claim construction, inequitable conduct, and attorney fees determinations. The appellate court found no inequitable conduct and insufficiently egregious misconduct on the part of Powell's attorney. [1] [9]

Related Research Articles

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute. The declaratory judgment is generally considered a statutory remedy and not an equitable remedy in the United States, and is thus not subject to equitable requirements, though there are analogies that can be found in the remedies granted by courts of equity. A declaratory judgment does not by itself order any action by a party, or imply damages or an injunction, although it may be accompanied by one or more other remedies.

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana.

In United States patent law, inequitable conduct is a breach of the applicant's duty of candor and good faith during patent prosecution or similar proceedings by misrepresenting or omitting material information with the specific intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A claim of inequitable conduct is a defense to allegations of patent infringement. Even in an instance when a valid patent suffers infringement, a court ruling on an allegation of infringement may exercise its power of equitable discretion not to enforce the patent if the patentee has engaged in inequitable conduct.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i>

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

The Coalition for Patent Fairness (CPF) is an ad hoc organization of companies who are lobbying for reforms to the US patent system. In general, they believe that the United States Patent and Trademark Office is too prone to grant overly broad patents. They feel that these overly broad patents and the level of damages that legitimate patent holders can obtain through courts is so high that it inhibits innovation. They were strongly in favor of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 and its successors the Patent Reform Act of 2009 and the America Invents Act.

In the United States, a valid patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from practicing the invention claimed in that patent. A person who practices that invention without the permission of the patent holder infringes that patent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James V. Selna</span> American judge

James V. Selna is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, was a case decided in 1997 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning source code and the disclosure requirement for software patents.

Ecolab v. FMC, 569 F.3d 1335, is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual knowledge. In an 8–1 decision delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that induced infringement requires knowledge of patent infringement, but because the petitioners had knowledge of a patent infringement lawsuit involving the respondent and Sunbeam Products over the same invention, the Federal Circuit's judgement that petitioners induced infringement must be affirmed under the doctrine of willful blindness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Rodney Gilstrap</span> American judge (born 1957)

James Rodney Gilstrap is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is notable for presiding over more than one quarter of all patent infringement cases filed in the nation and is often referred to by various sources as the country's single "busiest patent judge."

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."

The reverse doctrine of equivalents is a legal doctrine of United States patent law, according to which a device that appears to literally infringe a patent claim, by including elements or limitations that correspond to each element or limitation of the patent claim, nonetheless does not infringe the patent, because the accused device operates on a different principle. That is, "it performs the same or a similar function in a substantially different way." It has been said that "the purpose of the 'reverse' doctrine is to prevent unwarranted extension of the claims beyond a fair scope of the patentee's invention."

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Powell v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 663F.3d1221 ( Fed. Cir. 2011).
  2. 1 2 3 Powell v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 715F. Supp. 2d1285 ( S.D. Fla. 2010).
  3. ↑ TrippScott, Peter Herman's Bio, archived from the original on 2011-10-22, retrieved 2011-04-28
  4. ↑ TrippScott, Alexander Brown's Bio, archived from the original on 2012-03-23, retrieved 2011-04-28
  5. ↑ Mayback & Hoffman, Gregory Mayback's Bio, archived from the original on 2019-06-13
  6. ↑ Mayback & Hoffman, Catherine Hoffman's Bio, archived from the original on 2019-06-16
  7. ↑ The Concept Law Group, P.A., Scott Smiley's Bio
  8. ↑ "Powell v. Home Depot – False Petition Not "Egregious Misconduct"". The National Law Review . Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. 2011-11-16. Retrieved 2012-09-13.
  9. ↑ "Post-Therasense: Inequitable Conduct Really Is a Higher Standard". McDermott Will & Emery. 2011-12-05. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.