Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Filing 455

ORDER REGARDING ACCEPTABLE NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES AND LOST PROFITS re 449 Brief, filed by Hologic, Inc., 450 Brief filed by Conceptus, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 6, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

CONCEPTUS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REGARDING
ACCEPTABLE
NON-INFRINGING
ALTERNATIVES
AND LOST PROFITS

HOLOGIC, INC.,
Defendant.
/

14
15

No. C 09-02280 WHA

In December 2010, partial summary judgment was granted in favor of Conceptus, Inc. that

16

“there were no acceptable and available, non-infringing alternatives to the claimed inventions

17

during the relevant damages period” (Dkt. No. 356 at 17–20). Conceptus now requests an

18

in limine ruling that, pursuant to the partial summary judgment ruling, Hologic, Inc. may not

19

introduce evidence or argue that tubal ligation was an acceptable non-infringing alternative

20

during the damages period (Dkt. No. 450). With one important caveat, the request is GRANTED.

21

In opposing Conceptus’s motion for summary judgment on this issue, the only supposed

22

alternatives Hologic identified were “design-arounds,” meaning other design approaches that the

23

Hologic engineers supposedly tested but did not bring to market. Hologic did not identify tubal

24

ligation as a supposedly acceptable non-infringing alternative (Dkt. No. 296 at 22–24). The

25

summary judgment ruling that there were no acceptable and available non-infringing alternatives

26

will stand. Hologic had the burden of identifying any such alternatives at the summary judgment

27

stage, and it failed to do so. Hologic may not now introduce the new theory that tubal ligation

28

was an acceptable alternative.

1

Conceptus, however, still bears the burden of establishing that but for the alleged

2

infringement it would have made additional sales. The summary judgment ruling does not imply

3

that Conceptus would have sold its product to every user of Hologic’s method if Hologic had not

4

been in the market. Rather, the absence of any acceptable non-infringing alternative is only one

5

step along the way to proving lost profits. Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co., 279 F.3d 1378, 1380

6

n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives is one of four factors in

7

the test for entitlement to lost profits damages . . . .”) (emphasis added).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: October 6, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2