Geigtech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.

Filing 467

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL. Since the jury concluded that nothing in the accused statement was defamatory, GeigTech and Mr. Geiger are entitled to a verdict on the defamation claim without regard to any unnecessary ancillary findings, and the jury shoul d have stopped right there ( as we did when reading the verdict). That they did not is my fault; my instructions were not sufficiently clear. I did not say on the verdict sheet, "If your answer to Question 1 is "NO," stop and report your verdict." I apologize to you for that oversight on my part. Fortunately, the two additional findings that were not read into the record upon the taking of the verdict do not render the verdict inconsistent or require any further discussion. But they need to be reported to you. Attached to this is a complete copy of the verdict sheet as filled out by the jury for your records. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 3/15/24) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL. (yv)

L

-

'USDCSDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_____________________x
GEIGTECH EAST BAY LLC,

DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

i-4,'---'~--~;;-y

DOC #:_ _ _
FILED:

L -~\ fE

Plaintiff,
-against-

18 civ 5290 (CM)

LUTRON ELECTRONICS , INC.,
Defendant.

- -- - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- -X
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL
McMahon, J.:

Counsel, this morning we received a form of judgment on a patent claims from the Clerk's
Office, to which the Verdict Sheet was attached. Since I am not entering the judgment until I issue
a verdict on the trade dress issue, I just tore up the proposed judgment. However, I noticed two
things on the verdict sheet that should have been read aloud when the verdict was taken. Not only
did the jury find no defamation, it went on to find that GeigTech has proved that the following
aspects of the allegedly defamatory statement were true:
Lutron opted to poach (GeigTech's) patented designs and
intellectual property to try and remain competitive in a
segment of the market that (GeigTech) cornered.
The jury also indicated on the verdict sheet that GeigTech had not proved that any portion of the
accused statement constituted opinion.
Since the jury concluded that nothing in the accused statement was defamatory, GeigTech
and Mr. Geiger are entitled to a verdict on the defamation claim without regard to any unnecessary
ancillary findings, and the jury should have stopped right there (as we did when reading the
verdict). That they did not is my fault; my instructions were not sufficiently clear. I did not say on
the verdict sheet, "If your answer to Question 1 is "NO," stop and report your verdict." I apologize
to you for that oversight on my part. Fortunately, the two additional findings that were not read
into the record upon the taking of the verdict do not render the verdict inconsistent or require any
further discussion. But they need to be reported to you.
Attached to this is a complete copy of the verdict sheet as filled out by the jury for your
records.

Dated: March 15, 2024

U.S.D.J.

BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - --

- - -- -- - - - -X

GEIGTECH EAST BAY LLC,
Plaintiff,
18 Civ. 05290 (CM)
-againstLUTRON ELECTRONICS CO., INC.,
Defendant.

- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -X
JURY VERDICT SHEET

1

Section 1: Patent Infringement

la.
Did GeigTech prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Lutron infringed any of the
Asserted Claims of the '717 Patent?

YES _

_

)<,,____ _

NO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

IF YOU ANSWERED NO TO QUESTION la, DO NOT ANSWER ANY MORE
QUESTIONS ABOUT PATENTS. GO TO PAGE 4, DEFAMATION .

1b.

If your answer is yes, then please indicate below which claims were infringed?

Please note:

Ifyour answer for Claim #1

infringed" to Claim 2.

is "not infringed" then you must answer "not

Ifyour answer for Claim #8 is

"not infringed " then you must answer "not

infringed" to Claims 10, 11 and 12.

Claim 1

·y..__

Claim 2

't.

Claim 8

A

Claim 10

>(

Claim 11

X

Claim 12

X

Ifyou answered "Yes" to Question# la,

then proceed to Question #2.

2. Did GeigTech prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Lutron's infringement was
willful?

X

YES _ _ __

NO- - - -

2

3a.
Did Lutron prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the Asserted Claims of
the '717 Patent are invalid?

NO

YES- - - 3b.

Which claims did Lutron prove were invalid?

'717 Patent ·

~

Valid·'
•

--.-

,

. "'::.

,,

'

~'

---. ·~-

-.

.,..

-~-

·Invalid
£-,

..
'"

1'

Claim 2
'

Claim 8

,,:

•i,r

'c,;

Claim 1

4.

X

X.
~

Claim 10

X

Claim 11

~

Claim 12

;><.

What amount of damages is GeigTech entitled to as a result of Lutron' s patent infringement
through the date of your verdict?

Damagesof$

3Y,(o M\\\\On

3

Section 2: Defamation

For ease of reference: "the accused statement" is as follows:

"It's unfortunate that rather than investing the time, effort, and resources necessary to
innovate their own products, Lutron has instead opted to poach our patented designs and
intellectual property to try and remain competitive in a segment of the market that we've
cornered. Their blatant infringement has left us no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect
our patented designs as we continue to focus on providing our customers with the mosc
innovative, highest quality window shading solutions out there."

la.
Has Lutron proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any portion of the accused
statement is defamatory, as I have defined that term for you?
YES _ _ __

lb.

NO

X

lf"Yes", please write in the space provided which portion is defamatory

4

2a.
Has GeigTech shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any portion of the accused
statement is true?
YES

2b.
true:

i

X

NO- - - -

If "Yes", please write out the portion of the statement that GeigTech has proved to be

~:~~;;J;e!co !~!~d=+~:nnv~

( Ci e; ~ ech)

r:n ex---ed .

5

3a.
Has GeigTech proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any portion of the accused
statement that you find to be defamatory constitutes opinion?

X

YES- - - - -

3b.

NO- - - -

If "Yes", Please write out the portion of the statement that constitutes opinion:

Ifyou have concluded that the entire accused statement is either (i) not defamatory, (ii) true,
and/or (iii) opinion, then you can stop and report your verdict. If you conclude that any portion
of the accused statement is (i) defamatory, (ii) false, and (iii) not opinion, go on to Question 4.

4.
Has Lutron proved by a preponderance of the evidence that GeigTech made any statement
that you found to be (i} defamatory; (ii) false; and (iii) not opinion with actual malice - that is,
with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false?
YES _ __ _ _ _ __

Ifyou answer to Question 4 is

NO _ _ _ _ __ _

"No," top and report your verdict. If it is "Yes, " go on to

Question 5.

5.

How much in damages do you award to Lutron?
$_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

6

6a.
Has Lutron proved by a preponderance of the evidence that GeigTech made any statement
that you found to be (i) defamatory; (ii) false; and (iii) not opinion "maliciously" - as I defined
that term for punitive damages? To remind you, a statement is made "maliciously" if it is made
with deliberate intent to injure or made out of hatred, ill will, or spite or made with willful, wanton
or reckless disregard of another's rights.
YES - - - - - - - -

6b.

NO- - - - - - - -

If your ·answer is "Yes", what an1ount of punitive damages do you award to Lutron?
$_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Stop and have the Foreperson sign and date this form and then contact the Court Officer

SO SAY WE ALL.

Seem PavV\£..

Dated: March _B_, 2024

zfi:--

Jury1oreperson

7