Sig Sauer Inc. et al v. Freed Designs, Inc.

Filing 50

///ORDER denying without prejudice 28 plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Sig Sauer, Inc., Check-Mate
Industries, Inc., Check-Mate
International Products, Inc.,
Nordon, Inc., and Thomas
Pierce d/b/a Pierce Designs,
Plaintiffs
v.

Case No. 14-cv-461-SM
Opinion No. 2015 DNH 198

Freed Designs, Inc.,
Defendant
O R D E R
Sig Sauer’s (et al.) motion for partial summary judgment
with respect to lost profits (document no. 28) is denied without
prejudice.

Although the issue may arise again, for purposes of
resolving this motion, Sig Sauer concedes that Freed Designs held
an implied exclusive license during the claimed patent
infringement period.

Sig Sauer next asserts that an “implied”

exclusive license cannot recover lost profits damages.

It cites

no authority supporting the notion that while an exclusive
licensee may recover lost profits damages for infringement, an
implied exclusive licensee may not.

The Federal Circuit does not

seem to have drawn such a distinction, and I can see no rational
reason to do so.

See e.g. Weinar v. Rollform Inc., 744 F.2d 797,

806-08 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming award of lost profit damages
to a licensee with the exclusive right to sell in the entire
United States); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc., 469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
October 23, 2015
cc:

Brian M. Gaff, Esq.
Neal E. Friedman, Esq.
Michael J. Bujold, Esq.

2