SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., No. 09-1099

By FindLaw Staff on February 05, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.

Read SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., No. 09-1099

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided February 5, 2010

Judges

Before: Bryson, Linn, and Rader, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Rader

Counsel

For Appellant: Norman H. Zivin, Cooper & Dunham LLP

For Appellee: William Dunnegan, Dunnegan LLC