Presidio Components Inc v. American Technical Ceramics Corp

Filing 473

ORDER granting 431 Motion Supplemental Damages; granting 432 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying as moot 446 Motion to Strike Rabe Declaration; denying as moot 454 Motion to Strike Newman and Devoe Declarations. Court grants Presidi o's motion for permanent injunction. Court grants Presidio's motion for supplemental damages and awards damages in the amount of $1,508,114. Parties shall submit a stipulated judgment correctly reflecting the prejudgment interest on the supplemental damages awarded. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/12/2013. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 08-cv-335-IEG-NLS
ORDER:

v.

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION [Doc.
No. 432];

AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS
CORP.,

(2) AWARDING SUPPLEMENTAL
DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,508,114 [Doc. No. 431];

15

Defendant.
16
17

(3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO STRIKE RABE DECLARATION
[Doc. No. 446];

18
19

(4) DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
NEWMAN DECLARATION [Doc.
No. 454]; and

20
21
22

(5) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
TO STRIKE DEVOE
DECLARATION [Doc. No. 454].

23
24
25
26
27
28

Presently before the Court are the motions of Plaintiff Presidio Components
Inc. (“Presidio”) for a permanent injunction and for supplemental damages. [Doc.
1
08-cv-335

1
2

Nos. 432; 431.] Presidio has also filed a motion to strike the Rabe declaration. [Doc.
No. 446.] Defendant American Technical Ceramics Corporation (“ATC”) has filed a

3
4

motion to strike the Newman and Devoe declarations. [Doc. No. 454.] For the

5

following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions for a permanent injunction and

6

for supplemental damages. The Court awards supplemental damages in the amount

7
8

of $1,508,114 to Presidio. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Presidio’s motion to

9

strike the Rabe declaration. The Court DENIES ATC’s motion to strike the Newman

10

declaration and DENIES AS MOOT ATC’s motion to strike the Devoe Declaration.

11
12

BACKGROUND

13

The Court summarizes the procedural history of the above-captioned case

14

following the parties’ post-trial motions. On April 13, 2010, this Court denied

15
16

Presidio’s post-trial motions for a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and

17

attorney’s fees, but granted Presidio supplemental damages. [Doc. No. 348, Order on

18

Post-Trial Mots.] In response to ATC’s post-trial motions, this Court vacated the
19
20

willfulness verdict and set an ongoing royalty rate of 12% of the 545L capacitor’s

21

wholesale price. [Id.] The Court denied ATC’s motions for judgment as a matter of

22
23

law (“JMOL”) or a new trial, and JMOL on the jury’s lost profit damages award and

24

on false marking prior to October 24, 2008. [Id.] This Court also fined Presidio

25

$0.35 per unit for false marking. [Id.]

26
27
28

On December 19, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part,
and remanded this Court’s orders on the post-trial motions of ATC and Presidio.
2
08-cv-335

1
2

Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics, Corp., 702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2012). The Federal Circuit affirmed the majority of this Court’s determinations, with

3
4

the exception of its finding of no irreparable injury, the related denial of a permanent

5

injunction, and the ongoing royalty determination. Id. at 1354. The Federal Circuit

6

stated that this Court’s “finding of no competition for the purpose of irreparable harm

7
8

conflicts with the clear finding of competition for the purpose of awarding damages”

9

and that “the record shows direct and substantial competition between the parties.”

10

Id. at 1363. The Federal Circuit also stated that the jury’s finding that ATC’s 545L

11
12

capacitor sales caused Presidio to lose sales of its BB capacitors “squarely supports a

13

finding of irreparable harm.” Id. at 1363. Because the Federal Circuit held that this

14

Court clearly erred in finding no irreparable injury, it vacated this Court’s denial of

15
16

Presidio’s motion for a permanent injunction and remanded for a re-weighing of the

17

four factors consistent with the Federal Circuit’s opinion. The Federal Circuit also

18

vacated this Court’s ongoing royalty determination, which was predicated on the
19
20
21

denial of the permanent injunction. Id. at 1364.
On May 15, 2013, Presidio filed motions for permanent injunction and for

22
23

supplemental damages. [Doc. No. 432, Mot. for Permanent Injunction (“PI”); Doc.

24

No. 431, Mot. for Supp. Damages.] On June 12, 2013, ATC filed sealed oppositions

25

to both motions. [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI; Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot. for

26
27
28

Supp. Damages.] On June 13, 2013, Presidio filed sealed reply memoranda in
support of both motions. [Doc. No. 447, Reply to Mot. for PI; Doc. No. 448, Reply
3
08-cv-335

1
2

to Mot. for Supp. Damages.] Also on June 13, Presidio filed a motion to strike the
declaration of Mr. Stephan Rabe. [Doc. No. 446, Mot. to Strike Rabe Decl.] On June

3
4

18, 2013, ATC filed a motion to strike the declarations of Mr. Glenn Newman and

5

Mr. Lambert Devoe. [Doc. No. 454, Mot. to Strike Newman and Devoe Decl.] On

6

June 19, 2013, the Court ordered ATC to file a surreply addressing the merits of

7
8

Presidio’s reply memorandum in support of its motion for supplemental damages.

9

[Doc. No. 460.] On June 21, 2013, ATC filed a sealed surreply memorandum. [Doc.

10

No. 465, Surreply to Mot. for Supp. Damages.] On June 26, 2013, the Court held

11
12

oral argument on the motions for permanent injunction, for supplemental damages,

13

and to strike. [Doc. No. 472.]

14

DISCUSSION

15
16
17

I. Motion for Permanent Injunction
In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., the Supreme Court overruled the

18

Federal Circuit’s “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against
19
20

patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 547 U.S. 388, 390-94 (2006).

21

The Supreme Court held that a “plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy

22
23

a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate:

24

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such

25

as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that,

26
27
28

considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in
equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a
4
08-cv-335

1
2

permanent injunction.” Id. at 391. The Court must balance the four factors to
determine whether an injunction is appropriate. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551

3
4

F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States,

5

441 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1264 (C.I.T. 2006) (citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of

6

Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 546 n.12 (1987)) (“All parties agree, as they must, that

7
8
9
10

the ‘four-factor test’ is a balancing test.”).
“[T]he decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the
equitable discretion of the district courts, and . . . such discretion must be exercised

11
12

consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other

13

cases governed by such standards.” eBay, 547 U.S. at 394. However, the Federal

14

Circuit recently reaffirmed that “[w]hile a patentee is not entitled to an injunction in

15
16

every case, ‘it does not follow that courts should entirely ignore the fundamental

17

nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude.’”

18

Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1363 (quoting Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg.
19
20
21

Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
In its post-trial motions, Presidio initially moved for a permanent injunction in

22
23

light of the jury’s finding that the ‘356 patent is valid and infringed. [Doc. No. 348,

24

Order on Post-Trial Mots. at 62.] When ruling on the post-trial motions, this Court

25

found that Presidio failed to carry its burden in demonstrating irreparable injury,

26
27
28

inadequacy of money damages, and that the public interest tips in its favor, and
denied the motion for a permanent injunction. [Id. at 68.] On appeal, the Federal
5
08-cv-335

1
2

Circuit held that “the district court clearly erred in finding no irreparable injury” and
“abused its discretion when it denied Presidio a permanent injunction.” Presidio

3
4

Components, 702 F.3d at 1364. The Federal Circuit did not specifically address any

5

of the other permanent injunction factors. See id. at 1362-64.

6

Presidio requests that the Court enter a permanent injunction in light of the

7
8

Federal Circuit’s ruling that there was irreparable injury. [Doc. No. 432-1, Mot. for

9

PI at 6-7 (citing Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1354, 1362-64).] ATC stresses

10

that the Federal Circuit did not direct the Court to enter an injunction, but rather

11
12

remanded for “re-weighing of the four [eBay] factors.” [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot.

13

for PI at 1 (quoting Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1364).] ATC argues that the

14

“[r]eevaluation and reweighing of the eBay factors is prospective.” [Doc. No. 443,

15
16
17

Opp. to Mot. for PI at 1.] The Court considers each factor in turn.
A. Irreparable Injury

18

“The essential attribute of a patent grant is that it provides a right to exclude
19
20

competitors from infringing the patent.” Acumed, 551 F.3d at 1328 (citing 35 U.S.C.

21

§ 154(a)(1) (2000)). “In view of that right, infringement may cause a patentee

22
23

irreparable harm not remediable by a reasonable royalty.” Acumed, 551 F.3d at

24

1328. “Direct competition in the same market is certainly one factor suggesting

25

strongly the potential for irreparable harm without enforcement of the right to

26
27

exclude.” Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1363.

28
6
08-cv-335

1
2

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the Court’s initial finding on the post-trial
motions that ATC and Presidio are not direct competitors for the purpose of

3
4

irreparable harm. In the context of the four-factor Panduit test for lost profits, the

5

Federal Circuit affirmed the Court’s finding that Presidio and ATC are direct

6

competitors. Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1363 (citing Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin

7
8

Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)). The Federal Circuit

9

highlighted the tension between this Court’s clear finding of competition for the

10

purpose of awarding damages and the finding of no competition for the purpose of

11
12
13
14

irreparable harm. Id. at 1362.
In support of its holding that Presidio and ATC are direct competitors, the
Federal Circuit stressed that the BB and 545L capacitors “are both one-piece

15
16

broadband capacitors with a substantially monolithic design.” Id. The Federal

17

Circuit also cited the testimony of Presidio’s damages expert, Mr. Newman, that the

18

two products compete “head-to-head” in the one-piece capacitor market for the same
19
20

customers and applications. Id. Additionally, in its discussion of the permanent

21

injunction, the Federal Circuit favorably cited this Court’s finding on the damages

22
23

issue that “substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that demand existed for

24

the BB capacitors, which compete with the 545L capacitors.” Id. at 1362 (quoting

25

Doc. No. 348, Order on Post-Trial Mots. at 51).

26
27
28

In light of this record evidence of direct competition, the Federal Circuit held
that this Court “placed too much weight on Presidio’s failure to practice the #356
7
08-cv-335

1
2

patent.” Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1363.1 The Federal Circuit also held that
this Court “correctly found Presidio’s unwillingness to license favored finding

3
4

irreparable injury.” Id.

5
6

Presidio stresses that “the principal value of a patent is the right to exclude arch
competitors from making, selling and using an infringing product.” [Doc. No. 432-1,

7
8

Mot. for PI at 11 (quoting Fresenius Med. Care Holdings v. Baxter Int’l, 2008 U.S.

9

Dist. LEXIS 79689, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008).] It argues that Presidio and

10

ATC are “direct competitors, selling competing capacitor products in the same

11
12

market and to the same customers and potential customers.” [Id.] In view of this

13

direct competition, Presidio argues that it has adequately demonstrated irreparable

14

harm. [Id. at 12.] Presidio also cites its smaller size relative to ATC and the fact that

15
16

it never licensed the patent in question to support its claim of irreparable injury.

17

[Id. at 14-15.]

18

ATC contends that the Federal Circuit found irreparable harm on the 2009 trial
19
20

record. It argues that changed circumstances that are now before the Court, which

21

were not before the Federal Circuit and the jury, show that Presidio had strong

22
23

marketplace success from 2010-2013. ATC points to Presidio’s sales data, which

24

shows growing BB capacitor sales from 2010-2013. [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for

25

PI at 3.] ATC argues that in 2013, BB capacitors and 545Ls “do not compete”

26
27
28

1

The Federal Circuit held that the Court correctly noted that even though Presidio conceded that
the BB capacitors do not practice the ‘356 patent, this does not prevent Presidio from receiving
injunctive relief. Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1363.
8

08-cv-335

1
2

because 545L capacitors have a lower insertion loss and were designed to compete in
a higher performance market than BB capacitors, which have a higher insertion loss.

3
4
5
6

[Id. at 5.]
Although ATC now presents emails from several customers who state that they
cannot use BB capacitors when they require a low-insertion-loss capacitor, and

7
8

instead use the 545L, these statements are insufficient for this Court to reject the

9

Federal Circuit’s conclusion that BB capacitors directly compete with the 545L

10

capacitors. The Federal Circuit was aware of the difference in insertion loss between

11
12

the two capacitors. Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at 1360. Nonetheless, it held that

13

the capacitors directly competed with each other and that there was irreparable harm.

14

Furthermore, as Presidio argues, these emails from customers demonstrate that

15
16

customers are evaluating the BB and 545L capacitors for the same projects and

17

therefore support the finding that Presidio and ATC are direct competitors. [Doc. No.

18

439, Presidio’s Reply to Mot. for PI at 5.] Therefore, the Court finds that Presidio
19
20
21

has shown irreparable harm.
B. Inadequacy of Monetary Damages

22
23

“The essential attribute of a patent grant is that it provides a right to exclude

24

competitors from infringing the patent. . . . In view of that right, infringement may

25

cause a patentee irreparable harm not remediable by a reasonable royalty.” Acumed,

26
27
28

551 F.3d at 1328 (internal citation omitted). “[T]he issues of irreparable harm and
the adequacy of remedies at law are inextricably intertwined.” ActiveVideo
9
08-cv-335

1
2

Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comms., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see
also Acumed, 551 F.3d at 1327-29 (analyzing irreparable harm and adequacy of

3
4
5
6

monetary damages together).
“While money damages are generally considered inadequate to compensate for
the violation of a patentee’s right to exclude, [the patentee] nonetheless [has] a

7
8

burden to iterate specific reasons why [the] infringement can not be compensated for

9

with a money award. “Loss of business opportunity or damage to brand recognition

10

could provide a basis for concluding that monetary relief would be inadequate.”

11
12

ActiveVideo Networks, 649 F.3d at 1340. Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 479 F.Supp.2d

13

440, 444 (D. Del. 2007) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Loss of market share,

14

brand recognition, and customer goodwill “may frequently defy attempts at

15
16

valuation.” i4i Ltd. Parternship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 862 (Fed. Cir.

17

2010). The fact that a patentee has previously chosen to license the patent may

18

indicate that a reasonable royalty does compensate for infringement. Acumed, 551
19
20
21

F.3d at 1328.
“Difficulty in estimating monetary damages is evidence that remedies at law

22
23

are inadequate.” Id. However, record evidence must establish these losses. See

24

ActiveVideo Networks, 649 F.3d at 1340 (holding that money damages were

25

adequate when there was no record evidence that the patentee had “lost any market

26
27

share or any customers at all due to [the] infringement”).

28
10
08-cv-335

1
2

In Praxair, a case cited by this Court in its previous order on the post-trial
motions, the district court found that the patentee’s product was in “direct and head-

3
4

to-head competition” with the infringing product. Praxair, 479 F. Supp. 2d at 442.

5

The Praxair court also found that the two products were the only ones of their kind on

6

the market and that therefore, the infringing product was “taking sales from the

7
8

[patentee’s product].” Id. at 442-43. The Praxair court ultimately found, however,

9

that the patentee did not “[meet] its burden under eBay to put forward sufficient proof

10

vis-a-vis the broad scope of relief requested.” The district court found the patentee’s

11
12

general arguments that the infringing products’ presence in the market will cause it to

13

“likely lose additional market share, profits, and goodwill” without further

14

explanation did not make a sufficient showing of the inadequacy of monetary

15
16

damages. Id. at 443-44.

17

This Court previously found that Presidio did not meet its burden to show the

18

inadequacy of monetary damages. [Doc. No. 348, Order on Post-Trial Mots. at 66.]
19
20

The Court stated that although “Presidio argue[d] that the effects of future

21

infringement cannot be fully measured in dollars, [it] fail[ed] to explain why money

22
23

damages would not adequately compensate it for any alleged ‘lost market share’ or

24

any future lost opportunities.” [Id.] The Court found that Presidio “provide[d] no

25

evidence that it lost or will lose any specific customers or sales due to ATC’s

26
27
28

infringement, or that it has suffered any ‘lost market share’ or ‘price erosion.’” [Id. at
67.]
11
08-cv-335

1
2

In its motion for a permanent injunction, Presidio centers its argument
regarding inadequacy of monetary damages on Federal Circuit case law stating that

3
4

irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary damages are “inextricably intertwined.”

5

[Doc. No. 432-1, Mot. for PI at 15 (citing ActiveVideo Networks, 694 F.3d at 1337).]

6

Presidio argues that when the Federal Circuit “determined that . . . Presidio

7
8

demonstrated that ATC’s infringement causes irreparable harm[,] . . . the Federal

9

Circuit effectively determined that ATC’s infringement has resulted in the type of

10

harm which no monetary compensation can cure.” [Doc. No. 432-1, Mot. for PI at

11
12

15.] Presidio also uses the fact that it has never licensed the ‘356 patent and the fact

13

that the 545L is competing with Presidio’s main product to support a finding of the

14

inadequacy of monetary damages.

15
16
17

Presidio also makes speculative arguments regarding harm to its reputation and
goodwill. In its motion, Presidio cites the trial testimony of Mr. Lambert Devoe, a

18

principal with Presidio: “[I]f someone comes up to [Presidio] at a trade show and
19
20

says, hey, I just saw this ATC product. I thought you guys were innovators. What do

21

you guys have that’s new? That’s very difficult for us because essentially, you know,

22
23

in our opinion, it’s, that’s our design and they’re basically taking away our

24

relationship that we have with our customer, basically. So that has a strong negative

25

impact on our future business.” [Doc. No. 280, Tr. Transcript Day 2 at 110.] This

26
27
28

speculative testimony, however, does not explain how ATC’s 545L capacitors
negatively impact Presidio’s future business on the grounds of innovation. In fact,
12
08-cv-335

1
2

this testimony is just a hypothetical—there is no indication that this situation ever
arose. Furthermore, Presidio does not cite to any actual examples where customers

3
4

have switched from Presidio to ATC on the basis of believing that Presidio is no

5

longer an innovator.

6

ATC argues that “[a] finding of irreparable harm does not ipso facto produce a

7
8

finding of inadequacy of monetary damages.” [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI at

9

8.] ATC cites the Court’s previous finding that there “is no evidence . . . that

10

Presidio’s reputation as [an innovator and] provider of unique solutions [was]

11
12

damaged by the infringement.” [Id. at 8-9 (quoting Doc. No. 348, Order on Post-

13

Trial Mots. at 67).] ATC then argues that the damage to Presidio’s goodwill and

14

reputation is due to Presidio’s “inability or refusal to design a capacitor that solves

15
16

the very high insertion loss present in BBs.” [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI at 9.]

17

ATC also contends that Presidio is not the only innovator in the market, and that ATC

18

has launched a new market segment for customers who previously made their own
19
20

broadband capacitors. [Id.] ATC again reiterates its argument from the irreparable

21

harm prong that BBs and 545Ls are in different markets. [Id.] Finally, ATC

22
23

concludes that “any economic and tangential interests such as reputation and

24

goodwill of Presidio have been and can be adequately compensated with money

25

damages.” [Id. at 10.] However, ATC’s only attempt at an explanation for this

26
27
28

statement is that Presidio’s sales of BBs and other capacitors skyrocketed, which
“proves” that 545Ls “did no actual harm to Presidio or BBs.” [Id.]
13
08-cv-335

1
2

The Court finds that this factor does not tip in favor of either party. The fact
that Federal Circuit case law states that irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary

3
4

damages are inextricably intertwined supports the inadequacy of monetary damages,

5

as the Federal Circuit held that Presidio was irreparably damaged. Furthermore,

6

although Presidio does not specifically mention the difference in size between ATC

7
8

and Presidio, Mr. Lambert Devoe testified that when customers see that ATC, a much

9

larger supplier, offers the same product as Presidio, they may be more likely to buy

10

from ATC because they want to consolidate their component suppliers. [Doc. No.

11
12

280, Tr. Transcript Day 2 at 111-12.] The difference in size between the two

13

companies could be circumstantial evidence of the inadequacy of monetary damages.

14

However, because irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary damages are

15
16

two separate factors under the eBay test, Presidio may not simply rely on the Federal

17

Circuit’s holding of irreparable harm to demonstrate inadequacy of monetary

18

damages. In the present motion, Presidio failed to address the shortcomings of
19
20

Presidio’s arguments regarding inadequacy of monetary damages that the Court

21

identified in the order on post-trial motions. More specifically, Presidio failed to

22
23

provide evidence to support its claims of lost customers and sales, and explanations

24

as to why monetary damages would not compensate for future lost opportunities and

25

lost market share. Therefore, the Court finds that this factor does not support

26
27

Presidio. However, in light of the fact that irreparable harm and inadequacy of

28
14
08-cv-335

1
2

monetary damages are “inextricably intertwined,” this factor also cannot tip in favor
of ATC as Presidio has shown irreparable harm.

3
4

C. Balance of Hardships

5

The balance of hardships prong considers only the balance between a plaintiff

6

and a defendant. Acumed, 551 F.3d at 1330. “One who elects to build a business on

7
8

a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against

9

continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.” Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v.

10

AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003, n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

11
12
13
14

The Court previously found that the balance of hardships tips in Presidio’s
favor because the mere fact that ATC would have to stop selling the infringing 545L
capacitors is not a hardship. [Doc. No. 348, Order on Post-Trial Mots. at 68.]

15
16

Although the Federal Circuit did not specifically address this finding, it did state at

17

the outset of its opinion that it “affirms the vast majority of [this Court’s]

18

determinations,” subject to a few exceptions. Presidio Components, 702 F.3d at
19
20

1354. Accordingly, and because circumstances have not changed to tip the balance

21

of hardships in favor of ATC, this Court again finds that the balance of hardships

22
23

favors Presidio.

24

D. Public Interest

25

Public interest is implicated where the product at issue is of unusual social

26
27
28

benefit. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 579 F.
Supp. 2d 554, 561 (D. Del. 2008). The Court previously found that the public interest
15
08-cv-335

1
2

favors ATC because “enjoining the sale of the 545L capacitors will hurt important
government, military, space, and infrastructure projects, as well as many critical

3
4

civilian industries.” [Doc. No. 348, Order on Post-Trial Mots. at 68.] The Court

5

found that the interests advanced by Presidio, (1) the interest in maintaining a strong

6

patent system; (2) the interest in fair and healthy competition; and (3) the interest in

7
8
9
10

discouraging future wrongdoing, are always present in a patent case. [Id.]
Presidio acknowledges that the Court determined this factor favors ATC, but
states that its slight weight should not outweigh the other factors. [Doc. No. 432-1,

11
12

Mot. for PI at 20.] Presidio also argues that at the present time, ATC’s infringing

13

545L capacitor “is not so important as to significantly affect society or the public’s

14

interest” because ATC has stated that it can provide its customers a different, non-

15
16

infringing product and because ATC appears to be discontinuing the 545L capacitor.

17

[Id. at 21-22 (citing Doc. No. 323-7, Decl. of Joseph Tierney ¶ 7; Doc. Nos. 432-3,

18

432-4, 432-5, Ex. B-D).]
19
20
21

In light of the Court’s previous finding that 545L capacitors are used in
government, military, space, and infrastructure projects, the Court again finds that

22
23

this factor still favors ATC. However, in light of the fact that ATC is discontinuing

24

the 545L capacitor, this factor supports ATC less than what the Court originally

25

found.

26
27
28

Summing up all four permanent injunction factors, the Court finds that
irreparable harm and the balance of hardships favors Presidio, whereas the public
16
08-cv-335

1
2

interest slightly favors ATC. The inadequacy of money damages does not favor
either party. Thus, balancing the factors supports a permanent injunction.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Presidio’s motion for a permanent injunction.
Presidio seeks entry of the following paragraphs in the permanent injunction:
3.
It is hereby Ordered that ATC and its successors, assigns,
officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons in active
concert or participation with them, including any parent and
subsidiary entities during the period commencing on the date hereof
and through the date of expiration of the ’356 patent are hereby
enjoined and restrained from infringing Claims 1-5, 16, and 18-19 of
the ‘356 patent and are further hereby enjoined and restrained from
making, using, selling, or offering to sell in the United States, or
importing into the United States the 545L capacitor or any other
product of another name that is not colorably different from the 545L
capacitor.
[Doc. No. 432-6, Ex. E, Proposed Permanent Injunction.]

15
16
17

The Court declines to adopt in full paragraph 3 of Presidio’s proposed
injunction because it is overbroad. First, the Court does not include successors,

18

assigns, and parent and subsidiary entities in the language of the injunction because
19
20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) does not include these entities as among those

21

that an injunction order binds. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc., 843

22
23

F.2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citing Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9,

24

14 (1945)); see also Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp, 383 F.3d 1312, 1313, 1315

25

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that an injunction must satisfy the requirements of Rule

26
27
28

65(d)). The Court notes, however, that these entities “may come within the
description of persons in active concert or participation with [a defendant] in
17
08-cv-335

1
2

violation of an injunction. If they are, by that fact they are brought within the scope
of contempt proceedings by the rules of civil procedure.” Eli Lilly, 843 F.2d at 1381

3
4
5
6

(citing Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14).
The Court also excludes the language from the proposed injunction which
enjoins and restrains the infringement of Claims 1-5, 16, and 18-19 of the ‘356 patent

7
8

because it is overly broad. “In the patent infringement context, [the Federal Circuit]

9

has rejected as overly broad a permanent injunction that simply prohibits future

10

infringement of a patent.” Int’l Rectifier, 383 F.3d at 1316; see also Additive

11
12

Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 986 F.2d 476, 479-80 (Fed. Cir.

13

1993) (rejecting an injunction as overly broad because “the order failed to state which

14

acts constituted infringement or to expressly limit its prohibition to the manufacture,

15
16

use, or sale of the specific device found to infringe . . . .”). Because the language

17

does not specify which acts constitute infringement of Claims 1-5, 16, and 18-19, the

18

Court finds that this language is overbroad.
19
20
21

Finally, the effective date of the injunction will be September 1, 2013, to allow
ATC to finish shipping those 545L capacitors that had been ordered prior to the date

22
23
24
25

of oral argument. ATC stated at oral argument that the last batch of 545L capacitors
will be delivered in August of 2013.
The Court declines to adopt the remainder of ATC’s revisions to Presidio’s

26
27
28

proposed injunction because the Court finds no case law precedent requiring them.
[Doc. No. 443, Ex. R, ATC’s Proposed Permanent Injunction.]
18
08-cv-335

1
2

The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.

ATC has been found to infringe Claims 1-5, 16, and 18-19 of United

3
4
5
6

States Patent No. 6,816,356 (“‘356 patent”).
2.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that ATC’s

infringement results in irreparable harm to Presidio.

7
8
9
10

3.

It is hereby ordered that ATC and its officers, agents, servants,

employees, attorneys, and persons in active concert or participation with them, during
the period commencing on September 1, 2013 and through the date of expiration of

11
12

the ‘356 patent are hereby enjoined and restrained from making, using, selling, or

13

offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States the 545L

14

capacitor or any other product of another name that is not colorably different from the

15
16

545L capacitor.

17

4.

ATC is required, within ten (10) business days of issuance, to provide

18

notice of this Order to all distributors, customers, or other third parties who have
19
20

ordered, received, or purchased any 545L capacitor from ATC or any entities recited

21

in Paragraph 3 above.

22
23
24
25

II. Motion for Supplemental Damages
Under the Patent Act’s damages provision, “the court shall award the claimant
damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a

26
27
28

reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with
interest and costs as fixed by the court.” 35 U.S.C. § 284 (emphasis added). There is
19
08-cv-335

1
2

a scarcity of analysis and case law “regarding the proper method for calculating
supplemental damages . . . .” in the patent context. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.

3
4

Co., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 772525, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2013) (“[T]he

5

cases discussing supplemental damages in the patent context are few. . . .”).

6

The court may award supplemental damages for infringement between a jury

7
8

verdict and the entry of judgment. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc.,

9

609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 960-61 (N.D. Cal. 2009); see also Stryker Corp. v. Davol, Inc.,

10

234 F.3d 1252, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

11
12
13
14

“The patentee bears the burden of proving damages.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Lucent Techs., Inc. v.
Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “To properly carry this burden,

15
16

the patentee must ‘sufficiently [tie the expert testimony on damages] to the facts of

17

the case.’” Uniloc USA, 632 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow

18

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993)). “If the patentee fails to tie the
19
20

theory to the facts of the case, the testimony must be excluded.” Uniloc USA, 632

21

F.3d at 1315.

22
23

Although calculation of damages may involve some approximation, “damages

24

may not be determined by mere speculation or guess.” Del Mar Avionics Inc. v.

25

Quinton Instrument Co., 836 F.2d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quoting Story

26
27
28

Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 563 (1931)).
A. Number of Infringing Units
20
08-cv-335

1
2

In its reply memorandum, Presidio argues that the number of infringing units
for the 2010-2013 period is 1,966,871. [Doc. No. 448, Reply to Mot. for Supp.

3
4

Damages, Ex. 1, Ex. 2] In its opposition brief, ATC contends that the number of

5

545Ls sold in the relevant period is 1,928,921. [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot. for

6

Supp. Damages at 2.] At oral argument, the parties agreed that the number of

7
8

infringing units for the relevant 2010-2013 period is 1,966,871. Therefore, the Court

9

accepts this number.

10

B. Amount of Damages

11
12
13
14

“[S]upplemental damages are calculated consistent with the damages awarded
in the jury verdict.” See Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
2009 WL 920300, at *3 (D.Ariz. Mar.31, 2009); accord Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v.

15
16

Intex Recreation Corp., 2005 WL 1498667, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2005) (setting

17

supplemental damages for the period between the jury verdict and the imposition of

18

permanent injunction at 13.5% based upon extrapolation from the jury’s general
19
20

verdict); Stryker Corp. v. Davol, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 746, 746–47 (W.D.Mich.1999)

21

(setting supplemental damages for the period between the jury verdict and the

22
23

imposition of a permanent injunction at 20%, which was the reasonable royalty found

24

by the jury for the period of infringement); Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Conagra,

25

Inc., 869 F. Supp. 656, 668 (W.D.Wis.1994) (setting additional damages for post-

26
27
28

judgment infringing sales at the ratio of damages to sales determined from the jury’s
verdict).
21
08-cv-335

1
2

Thus, “[i]n most . . . cases, a jury determined what the appropriate royalty rate
would be, allowing the court to simply apply the jury’s stated methodology to the

3
4

proven or estimated post-verdict sales.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,

5

609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “[I]n applying the same royalty rate used

6

by the jury, courts have explained that the rationale for continuing the jury’s award,

7
8

rather than using some other method, is that there is an absence of any meaningful

9

distinction between pre-verdict and post-verdict infringement.” Apple, 2013 U.S.

10

Dist. LEXIS 29051, at *20 (internal quotation omitted).

11
12
13
14

In the present case, the jury did not award Presidio a reasonable royalty, but
rather lost profits. The jury awarded Presidio $1,048,677 in lost profits based on the
782,000 545L capacitors sold by ATC between mid-2006 and September 30, 2009.

15
16

[Trial Tr. Day 4, at 177:6–178:24.] The jury calculated the lost profits award by

17

considering Presidio’s sales and profits for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. However,

18

the majority of the cases that Presidio cites in its motion for supplemental damages
19
20
21

are cases where the jury awarded a reasonable royalty.
1. $1.34 Per Unit as Supplemental Damages Amount

22
23

Presidio in its motion for supplemental damages argues that supplemental

24

damages should be calculated consistent with the damages awarded in the jury verdict

25

and contends that the damages should be $1.34 per infringing 545L capacitor. [Doc.

26
27
28

No. 431, Mot. for Supp. Damages at 2.] Presidio argues that the average of the jury
award was $1.34 per infringing unit.
22
08-cv-335

1
2

Presidio arrived at this amount from a previous order of this Court that
“extrapolate[d] that the jury awarded Presidio approximately $1.34 per 545L

3
4

capacitor sold between the period of 2006 and 2009” “based on the ratio of damages

5

to sales . . . .” Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp., 2010 WL

6

3070370, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010) aff’d in part, vacated in part, 702 F.3d 1351

7
8

(Fed. Cir. 2012). Presidio argues that this amount should be assessed for all sales

9

made by ATC from April 13, 2010 until entry of the injunction. [Id. at 4-5.]

10

Presidio also argues that “the Federal Circuit has repeatedly advised that the

11
12

jury’s verdict is typically increased to account for the considerable strengthening of

13

the patent owner’s post-verdict bargaining position.” [Doc. No. 431-1, Presidio’s

14

Mot. at 8.] Presidio argues that because its request for supplemental damages is

15
16

“merely equal to (and not higher than) the amount determined to be adequate

17

compensation by the jury[, it] is more than reasonable.” [Id.] However, the case that

18

Presidio cites, Amado v. Microsoft, was in the context of increasing a reasonable
19
20

royalty to account for post-verdict bargaining position. 517 F.3d 1353, 1361-62 (Fed.

21

Cir. 2008).

22

This this rationale is not applicable to lost profits as the purpose of

23
24

supplemental damages is to compensate the patentee;2 increasing the amount of lost

25

profits to account for post-verdict bargaining position would result in a windfall to

26
27
28

2

Presidio concedes that “[s]upplemental damages are compensatory in nature.” [Presidio’s
Mot. at 5.]
23
08-cv-335

1
2

the patentee. Presidio appears to conflate reasonable royalties with lost profits. The
Court finds that $1.34 per unit is inappropriate as the supplemental damages award.

3
4

First, the $1.34 figure was never found by the jury; rather, it was a figure adopted by

5

the Court as a weighted average for the limited purpose of awarding supplemental

6

damages for the short time period between December 1, 2009 and April 13, 2010.

7
8

Presidio Components, 2010 WL 3070370, at *1-2. Using this number would be

9

contrary to the methodology Presidio presented to the jury for lost profits. See Bard

10

Peripheral Vascular, 2009 WL 920300, at *3.

11

Second, the jury adopted the approach of Presidio’s expert, Mr. Newman. Mr.

12
13
14

Newman stated on direct examination that the proper method to calculate lost profit
would be to “look at it from a year-to-year basis.” [Doc. No. 444, ATC’s Opp., Ex.

15
16

B, 12/409 Tr. Transcript at 179.] Mr. Newman testified that “it wouldn’t be

17

appropriate to look at sales that occurred in 2009 of 545s and apply the old 2006

18

profit [as t]hat would misstate the loss of profits.” [Id.] He also testified that the BB
19
20

sale price and profit margins have been decreasing “consistent with the marketplace.”

21

[Id. at 178.]3

22

Finally, awarding Presidio $1.34 per unit would result in a windfall to Presidio

23
24

under ATC’s calculations that the average selling price between 2010 and 2013 was

25

between $1.23 and $1.32. [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 2, 4-7.]

26
27
3

28

Mr. Newman’s table shows that Presidio’s average lost profit per BB decreased from $1.68
in 2006 to $1.21 in 2009. [Doc. No. 444, ATC’s Opp., Ex. C at 10.]
24

08-cv-335

1
2

Even Mr. Newman, Presidio’s expert, calculated lost profits to be less than $1.34 per
unit. [Doc. No. 440, Reply to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 7.] For all the reasons

3
4

above, the Court finds that $1.34 per unit is inappropriate as the measure of

5

supplemental damages between 2010 and 2013.

6

2. Alternate Amount

7
8
9
10

Because the Court rejects Presidio’s $1.34 per unit for supplemental damages,
the Court considers alternate amounts to determine what amount of supplemental
damages is appropriate.

11
12
13
14

a. $0.25 per Unit
ATC argues that the Court should award $0.25 per infringing unit, which is the
ongoing royalty amount rate that the Court determined. [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot.

15
16

for Supp. Damages at 8; Doc. No. 465, Surreply to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 9.]

17

ATC contends that this amount “is the very same amount that Presidio’s Mr.

18

Newman endorsed as the rate which was adequate to compensate Presidio for
19
20

infringement.” [Doc. No. 444 Opp. to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 8.] Moreover, ATC

21

asserts that “for four years, [it] has reasonably and justifiably relied on this rate as its

22
23
24
25

cost to compensate Presidio and set its pricing and strategy for 545L sales based on
the $0.25 rate.” [Id.]
ATC does not provide any case law or reasoning to support why awarding the

26
27
28

royalty payment determined by the Court would be appropriate as a measure of
supplemental damages. The Court also cannot find any precedent to support the
25
08-cv-335

1
2

award of supplemental damages based on a reasonable royalty when the jury awarded
lost profits. See Bard Peripheral Vascular, 2009 WL 920300, at *3. Accordingly, the

3
4
5
6

Court declines to award supplemental damages in the amount of $0.25 per unit.
b. $0.35 per Unit
ATC also argues that Presidio should be compensated at a rate of $0.35, which

7
8

is the amount the Court awarded ATC as a per-BB capacitor fine for Presidio’s false

9

marking. [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 8; Doc. No. 465,

10

Surreply to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 9.] Again, ATC does not present any case law

11
12

to support its argument. Therefore, the Court declines to accept $0.35 per unit for

13

supplemental damages as this figure is not consistent with the damages awarded by

14

the jury. See Bard Peripheral Vascular, 2009 WL 920300, at *3.

15
16
17

c. Hybrid Amount
The Court next analyzes the method used by the jury to determine lost profits,

18

using price per unit and costs to calculate supplemental damages.
19
20
21

i. Price Per Unit
The method used by Mr. Newman at trial, and adopted by the jury is that

22
23

average price per unit should be based on actual unit and dollar sales to customers,

24

subject to certain volume thresholds. [Doc. No. 440, Ex. A, Newman Decl. at 3.]

25

Mr. Newman used actual historic prices when calculating lost profits. [Id.] The

26
27
28

Court replicates the table provided by Mr. Newman in his declaration, summarizing
the BB 0502’s average selling price in the relevant time period.
26
08-cv-335

1
2

BB 0502 Average Selling Price (Newman)
2010

2011

2012

2013

2010-2013

$1.47

$1.48

$1.60

$1.42

$1.52

3
4
5
6

[Id.] The Court adopts Mr. Newman’s methodology for calculating the average

7
8
9

selling price as it is the method accepted by the jury at trial.
Dr. Kennedy suggests a different methodology to calculate average price,

10

which uses Presidio’s year-by-year list price schedules for the BB 502 capacitors and
11
12

the pricing agreements it offered to certain overlapping customers. [Doc. No. 444,

13

Ex. A, Kennedy Decl. at 5-6.] Mr. Newman criticizes Dr. Kennedy’s approach as

14
15

being “inconsistent with the methodology presented to and accepted by the jury at

16

trial.” [Doc. No. 440, Ex. A, Newman Decl. at 3.] Although Dr. Kennedy believes

17

this approach is “more realistic and more appropriate” than that of Mr. Newman

18
19

[Doc. No. 444, Ex. A, Kennedy Decl. at 6], the Court declines to adopt Dr.

20

Kennedy’s approach to calculate average price per unit, as the jury did not utilize this

21

method during trial. See Bard Peripheral Vascular, 2009 WL 920300, at *3.

22
23
24
25

ii.

Costs

Revenue alone, without costs, is insufficient to prove lost profit damages. See
Designing Health, Inc. v. Erasmus, 132 Fed. Appx. 826, 832 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

26
27

(unpublished). The Federal Circuit has stated: “The evidence of DH’s gross sales

28
27
08-cv-335

1
2

figures . . . is also insufficient to establish damages. This evidence fails to establish
the profits, if any, that DH derived from sales of [its] products . . . .” Id.

3
4
5
6

In response to discovery requests, Presidio only produced evidence of its gross
revenues from BB sales for the years 2010-2013. [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot. for
Supp. Damages at 10.] Presidio did not produce BB-specific cost or profit

7
8

information for 2010-2013. [Id.] Presidio compiled and annually updated a BB-

9

specific cost file from 2006-2009, which both parties’ experts relied upon to calculate

10

lost profits at trial. [Id.] A letter from Presidio’s counsel Brett Schatz to counsel for

11
12

ATC, Timur Slonim confirmed that Presidio has not maintained this cost file since

13

2009. [Doc. No. 444, Ex. G, 5/3/13 Letter from Schatz to Slonim.] ATC also

14

contends that “[d]espite being asked by ATC for costs and profits, and ordered by the

15
16

Court on April 23, 2013 to produce everything related to BB costs and profits,

17

Presidio did not produce the source documents—materials’ costs, labor costs,

18

production yields, sales commissions, etc.—from which such annual BB-specific cost
19
20

information could have been compiled by ATC’s expert.” [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to

21

Mot. for Supp. Damages at 11.]

22
23

Because Presidio discontinued maintenance of BB-specific cost information,

24

the Court is unable to follow the exact methodology expounded by Mr. Newman and

25

adopted by the jury at trial, The cost information that Mr. Newman used to calculate

26
27
28

his lost profits amounts is not available for 2010-2013. Therefore, the Court must
approximate the amount of costs for the relevant time period. The Court considers in
28
08-cv-335

1
2

turn the methodology of each party’s expert to determine which is more reliable as an
estimate of costs.

3
4
5
6

The Court declines to adopt Mr. Newman’s determination of costs because it is
speculative. Mr. Newman estimates that BB 0502 direct costs for 2010-2013 are
consistent with those presented at trial. He therefore concludes that the costs were

7
8

$0.16 per unit, based on 2009 costs. To support his conclusion, Mr. Newman

9

summarily states that “[b]ased on discussions with Lambert Devoe and Alan Devoe,

10

Presidio does not believe that its unit costs for the BB 0502 capacitors have increased

11
12

since 2009.” [Doc. No. 440, Ex. A, Newman Decl. at 4.] Mr. Newman fails to

13

explain the basis of Mr. Lambert Devoe’s and Mr. Alan Devoe’s conclusions that unit

14

costs have not increased. The declaration of Mr. Lambert Devoe also does not

15
16

provide adequate support for his conclusion that costs have not increased. [Doc. No.

17

440, Ex. B, Lambert Devoe Decl.] Because Mr. Newman fails to adequately support

18

his conclusion that costs between 2010 and 2013 are the same as those in 2009, the
19
20
21

Court does not adopt Mr. Newman’s cost methodology as it is speculative.
Dr. Kennedy uses information from Presidio’s company-wide profit and loss

22
23

statements covering the period between September 2010 through January 2013 to

24

determine cost. [Doc. No. 465, Ex. C, Kennedy Decl. at 4.] Dr. Kennedy uses these

25

financial statements to determine the costs of goods sold and incremental operating

26
27
28

expenses. [Doc. No. 444, Ex. A, Kennedy Decl. at 7.] Dr. Kennedy states that he
used Presidio’s financial statements because Presidio did “not maintain cost of goods
29
08-cv-335

1
2

sold for the BB capacitors by model and represents that Presidio’s financial
statements represent Presidio’s costs and profits related to the BB product line, to the

3
4

fullest extent possible.” [Id.] Dr. Kennedy summarizes his findings for cost of goods

5

in a table attached to his declaration, which is reproduced below.

6

BB 0502 Gross Profit Margin and Cost of Goods (Kennedy)

7

2010

8
9
10
11
12
13

Cost of
Goods Sold
(%)
Cost of
Goods Sold
($)

2011

2012

2013

Avg.

31.5%

32.2%

29.4%

29.4%

30.6%

$0.39

$0.41

$0.39

$0.37

$0.39

14
15

[Doc. No. 465, Ex. C, Kennedy Decl. at 5; Doc. No. 444, Ex. A, Kennedy Decl. at

16

Ex. E.] The Court also reproduces Dr. Kennedy’s table summarizing his findings for

17

other incremental costs.

18

BB 0502 Other Incremental Costs

19

2010

20
21
22
23

Incremental
Costs (%)
Incremental
Costs ($)

2011

2012

2013

Avg.

19.9%

18.6%

17.3%

17.3%

18.21%

$0.24

$0.24

$0.23

$0.22

$0.23

24
25

[Doc. No. 465, Ex. C, Kennedy Decl. at 7.]

26
27
28
30
08-cv-335

1
2

Presidio has not met its burden to show that the Court should adopt 2009 costs
for the 2010-2013 time period. See Uniloc USA, 632 F.3d at 1315. The Court adopts

3
4

Dr. Kennedy’s analysis using Presidio’s financial statements to determine costs. As

5

the method adopted by the jury using BB capacitor-specific cost data cannot be

6

reproduced as that data is no longer available, the Court finds that Dr. Kennedy’s

7
8

method is the best approximation presented to the Court. See Del Mar Avionics, 836

9

F.2d at 1327.

10

iii.

Damages Figure

11

Combining Mr. Newman’s analysis on selling price and Dr. Kennedy’s

12
13
14

analysis on costs, the Court finds that incremental profit is $0.78. The Court
summarizes Dr. Kennedy’s analysis in the following chart:

15

Incremental Profit Per Unit

16
17

Average Selling Price

Newman Selling Price/Kennedy
Costs
$1.52

20

Direct Material

(0.47)

21

Gross Profit

1.05

Other Incremental Costs

(0.28)

Incremental Profit

$0.784

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Dr. Kennedy appears to round the incremental profit amount to $0.78.
31

08-cv-335

1
2

[Doc. No. 465, Ex. C, Kennedy Decl. at 5.] The following chart summarizes the
damages to be awarded to Presidio based on the number of units sold, 1,966,871.

3

Newman Selling Price/Kennedy Costs Damages Calculation

4

Incremental Profit

1,966,871

Damages

6

$0.785

All Units

5

$1,530,578

7
8
9
10

ii.

11

ATC then argues that the above amount should be reduced by the amount of

12
13

Retained Sales

sales to TriQuint and Agilent, which stated that they would or could not buy BB

14
15

capacitors. [Doc. No. 465, Surreply to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 6-7.] ATC also

16

argues that the amount of damages should be reduced by the amount of sales to Inphi

17

because Presidio refused to do business with Inphi. [Id.] Presidio did not address

18
19
20

ATC’s request to reduce damages by retained sales in its briefing or at oral argument.
[See Doc. No. 440, Reply to Mot. for Supp. Damages.]

21

To support its argument that the Agilent would not or could not buy BB

22
23

capacitors, ATC cites the following language from an email between Gunter Vorlop

24

and John Steward from Steward Technology, and CC to Lambert Devoe of Presidio,

25

regarding a meeting with Bobby Wong and Jonathan Storie:6 “There is a compelling

26
27

5

28

6

Dr. Kennedy appears to use $0.778 as the number by which he multiplies the total number
of units to arrive at the total damages amount. He rounds $0.778 to $0.78 in his chart.
ATC does not explain who these two individuals are.
32

08-cv-335

1
2

reason . . . to start using ATC545-L inside box (20 places) due to its reduced loss and
reduced price ($1.50 each).” [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI at 4; Doc. No. 443,

3
4

Ex. E, PCI-10176.] The context of this email is unclear. It is also unclear whether

5

this comment was a passing observation by Jonathan Storie, or a solid commitment to

6

move away from using BB capacitors.

7
8
9
10

To support its argument that TriQuint would not or could not buy BB
capacitors, ATC cites an email from Gunter Vorlop to Lambert Devoe, and consisted
of his notes from a visit with TriQuint. ATC specifically cites the following sentence

11
12

from Gunter Vorlop’s summary of the impressions of Kurt Cimino, a TriQuint

13

engineer: “Kurt is looking for (lower) loss improvements at the high frequency end.”

14

[Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI at 4-5; Doc. No. 443, Ex. F, PCI-10163.]

15
16

However, this statement does not demonstrate that TriQuint would not buy BB

17

capacitors.

18

From the statements cited by ATC, it is far from clear that Agilent and
19
20

TriQuint demonstrate that these companies would not buy BB capacitors when the

21

545Ls become unavailable. Accordingly, the Court declines to reduce the amount of

22
23
24
25

supplemental damages by the amount of sales to TriQuint and Agilent.
ATC also contends that sales to Inphi should be excluded because Presidio
refused to do business with them. [Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI at 4; Doc. No.

26
27
28

443, Ex. D, PCI-10416.] ATC cites a chart that lists Inphi and contains the following
note in the comments field: “VB4040 cracks at Kyocera CM. Not our fault. Inphi
33
08-cv-335

1
2

handled badly. LD doesn’t want bus anymore.” ATC interprets this statement to
mean that Lambert Devoe no longer wants Inphi’s business. [Doc. No. 465, Surreply

3
4

to Mot. for Supp. Damages at 7.] ATC argues that therefore, the 28,800 units of

5

545L capacitors that ATC sold to Inphi should not be included in supplemental

6

damages. [Id.; Doc. No. 443, Opp. to Mot. for PI at 4.] Presidio did not refute

7
8

ATC’s argument, nor did it dispute the number of units that ATC states it sold to

9

Inphi in its briefing or at oral argument. Because Presidio was unwilling to continue

10

sales to Inphi, who then bought 545L capacitors from ATC, the Court excludes

11
12

28,800 units from the supplemental damages calculation. The final amount of

13

damages is then $1,508,114, as summarized by the chart below.

14

Final Supplemental Damages Calculation

15
16

Damages

$1,530,578

17

Units Sold to Inphi

28,800

Incremental Profit

$0.78

20

Inphi Reduction in Damages

$22,464

21

Adjusted Damages

$1,508,114

18
19

22
23
24

C. Interest

25

Presidio argues that it is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest on the

26
27

entire supplemental damages award. [Doc. No. 431-1, Mot. for Supp. Damages at 8-

28
34
08-cv-335

1
2

9.] ATC does not oppose an award of prejudgment interest on supplemental damages
for the 269,725 units sold between April 14, 2010 and the date this Court entered

3
4

judgment in this case, October 26, 2010. [Doc. No. 444, Opp. to Mot. for Supp.

5

Damages at 12.] However, ATC contends that infringing units sold after October 26,

6

2010 should be subject to post-judgment interest. [Id.]

7
8
9
10

Several courts of appeals have held that where a first judgment is vacated, postjudgment interest accrues from the entry of judgment on remand. Lewis v. Whelan,
99 F.3d 542, 545 (2d Cir. 1996); see also Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez, 922 F.2d 11,

11
12

16 (1st Cir. 1990) (citing Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827,

13

836 (1990)); FDIC v. Rocket Oil Co., 865 F.2d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 1989).

14

On October 26, 2010, the clerk entered judgment in this case. [Id.] On

15
16

February 25, 2013, the Court spread the mandate of the Federal Circuit, which

17

affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the judgment, and remanded to this Court for

18

further proceedings. Because the Federal Circuit vacated this Court’s judgment on
19
20

the issuance of the permanent injunction, the date judgment is entered for the

21

permanent injunction and supplemental damages is the date of the entry of judgment

22
23

on remand. In accordance with the aforementioned case law, the Court awards

24

prejudgment interest on supplemental damages until the date of entry of judgment on

25

remand, to be reflected on the docket after the filing of this Order.

26
27
28

III.

Motions to Strike

A. Presidio’s Motion to Strike Rabe Declaration
35
08-cv-335

1
2

Presidio moves to strike the declaration of Mr. Stephan Rabe, arguing that it is
based on hearsay and not based on personal knowledge. [Doc. No. 446, Mot. to

3
4

Strike Rabe Decl.] Because the Court did not consider Mr. Rabe’s declaration when

5

ruling on the motions for permanent injunction and supplemental damages, the Court

6

DENIES AS MOOT Presidio’s motion.

7
8

B. ATC’s Motion to Strike Newman and Devoe Declarations

9

ATC argues that the Court should strike both the Newman and Devoe

10

declarations because they provide affirmative evidence, which is not permitted in a

11
12

reply brief. [Doc. No. 454, Mot. to Strike Newman and Devoe Decl.; Doc. No. 461,

13

P. & A. for Mot. to Strike Newman and Devoe Decl. at 1.] Presidio contends that the

14

motion should be denied as the “declarations . . . are solely in rebuttal to ATC’s . . .

15
16

theory regarding supplemental damages.” [Doc. No. 462, Opp. to Mot. to Strike

17

Newman and Devoe Decl. at 2.]

18

“Rebuttal evidence is properly admissible when it will ‘explain, repel,
19
20

counteract or disprove the evidence of the adverse party.’” Crowley v. Chait, 322 F.

21

Supp. 2d 530, 551 (D. NJ 2004) (quoting United States v. Chrzanowski, 502 F.2d

22
23

573, 576 (3d Cir. 1974)). “As long as a rebuttal expert witness speaks to the same

24

subject matter addressed by opposing counsel’s expert and does not introduce novel

25

arguments, his testimony is proper under Rule 26 and the case law interpreting it in

26
27
28

the Ninth Circuit and in this district. The fact that Plaintiff has only designated a
rebuttal expert, and not an initial expert, is not grounds to strike his report or exclude
36
08-cv-335

1
2

his testimony.” Donell v. Fid. Nat. Title Agency of Nevada, 2012 WL 170990, at *3
(D. Nev. Jan. 20, 2012). “The admissibility of evidence in rebuttal is committed to

3
4

the discretion of the trial judge.” Crowley, 322 F. Supp. 2d at551 (citing

5

Chrzanowski, 502 F.2d at 576).

6

1. Newman Declaration

7
8
9
10

ATC asserts that the Newman Declaration presents both affirmative and
rebuttal testimony. [Doc. No. 461, P. & A. for Mot. to Strike Newman and Devoe
Decl. at 2.] ATC asks the Court to strike the portions that present affirmative

11
12

testimony. [Id.] ATC also argues that Presidio’s decision to not submit a declaration

13

from Mr. Newman with its opening brief, but instead to withhold it until its rebuttal,

14

“severely prejudices” ATC. [Id.] Presidio, conversely, argues that Mr. Newman’s

15
16

declaration is limited to those issues discussed by Dr. Kennedy: Presidio’s lost

17

profits at trial; average selling price of the BB capacitor; incremental costs for the BB

18

capacitor; and supplemental damages. [Doc. No. 462, Opp. to Mot. to Strike
19
20

Newman and Devoe Decl. at 4-8.] The Court permitted ATC to address Mr.

21

Newman’s declaration in a surreply. The Court also allowed ATC to respond to Mr.

22
23
24
25

Newman’s declaration at oral argument. Accordingly, the Court DENIES ATC’s
motion to strike the Newman declaration.
2. Devoe Declaration

26
27
28

ATC argues that the Court should strike the Devoe declaration for five reasons:
(1) it is affirmative evidence that Presidio filed to present in its opening brief; (2) it is
37
08-cv-335

1
2

not rebuttal to the Kennedy declaration; (3) it is a summary of undisclosed and
undefined cost and comparative probability information; (4) it should be excluded as

3
4

a sanction for Presidio’s discovery misconduct; and (5) it should be excluded as

5

unreliable. [Doc. No. 461, P. & A. for Mot. to Strike Newman and Devoe Decl. at 7-

6

8.] Because the Court does not rely on the Devoe declaration for its rulings, the

7
8

Court DENIES AS MOOT ATC’s motion to strike the Devoe declaration.

9
10

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Presidio’s motion for a

11
12

permanent injunction. The Court GRANTS Presidio’s motion for supplemental

13

damages and awards damages in the amount of $1,508,114. The Court DENIES AS

14

MOOT the motion to Presidio’s motion to strike the Rabe declaration. The Court

15
16

DENIES ATC’s motion to strike the Newman declaration. The Court DENIES AS

17

MOOT ATC’s motion to strike the Devoe declaration.

18

The parties shall submit a stipulated judgment correctly reflecting the
19
20
21
22

prejudgment interest on the supplemental damages awarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2013
IRMA E. GONZALEZ, District Judge
United States District Court

23
24
25
26
27
28
38

08-cv-335