District Court, D. New Jersey — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007-05-22 · cited 11×
This case involved a patent infringement dispute in which Mars, Inc. had already been awarded $14,376,062 in damages based on a 7% reasonable royalty for Coin Acceptors, Inc.'s infringement of two Mars patents. The court addressed Mars's request for prejudgment interest on that award, rejecting Coinco's arguments that interest should be denied due to the case's complexity, the length of litigation, or other factors. The court held that prejudgment interest is required under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to fully compensate the patent owner for the lost use of money from the time of infringement, following Supreme Court precedent in General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. and Federal Circuit guidance that the strength of the infringer's challenge or litigation delays not caused by the plaintiff are not grounds for denial. It decided the interest should be calculated at the 52-week Treasury Bill rate, compounded annually, accruing from the dates when hypothetical royalty payments would have been made, resulting in an additional award of $12,429,088 and a total judgment of $26,805,150.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Chin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007-05-15 · cited 3×
This case concerns an application by the prevailing plaintiffs for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5 following a prior ruling that the 25 California-citizen plaintiffs were entitled to such fees from defendant DaimlerChrysler. The plaintiffs sought approximately $11.46 million based on over 6,350 hours of work by four law firms, a lodestar of about $3.23 million, and a requested multiplier of 3.5, while the defendant contended that only about $95,000 was reasonable. Applying the lodestar adjustment method, the court first determined reasonable hours and prevailing hourly rates to calculate the lodestar, then adjusted it with a multiplier after considering factors such as the contingent nature of the representation, results achieved, and time spent on fee litigation versus merits work. The court ultimately awarded a total of $4,654,433.14 in fees and expenses after reducing claimed hours for work not directly advancing the relief obtained and applying a multiplier of 2.0 to the merits portion and 1.0 to the fee portion of the lodestar.
procedure
MARS, INC. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007-05-10
In this case, Coin Acceptors, Inc. (Coinco) counterclaimed against Mars, Inc. for contributory and induced infringement of Claims 13 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 4,034,839, which covers a vending machine control circuit with specific elements including a price accumulator and vend price establishing devices. Mars sold coin changers for use in certain vending machines, but Coinco did not allege direct infringement because the full claims require elements present only in the completed vending machines. The court construed claim limitation [c.3] to require a one-to-one relationship between selection switches and vend price establishing devices, based on the claim language, patent figure, and lack of contrary evidence from Coinco. Because Mars' accused changers lacked this relationship, the court held there was no direct infringement and therefore no contributory or induced infringement of the claims. Claim 16, being dependent on Claim 13, was also not infringed.
business & regulatoryprocedure
MARS, INC. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007-04-17
This case involved a patent infringement dispute between Mars, Inc. and Coin Acceptors, Inc. (Coinco) over Coinco's U.S. Patent No. 4,254,857, which covers a metal detection device using oscillating circuits and timed bursts to identify coins in coin acceptors. Mars's TRC series coin changers were accused of infringing claims 1-3, 5, and 9 through their coin tube sensors that measure the height of stacked coins. The court construed the patent claims and held that there was no literal or equivalent infringement because the accused sensors lack the required "means for positioning" a moving object in the inductor's field and instead test static coin stacks for height, performing a different function than the claimed detector. Dependent claims were also not infringed as a result. The patent had already expired in 1998, so invalidity defenses were not addressed.
business & regulatory
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Kali Laboratories, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007-04-05 · cited 4×
This consolidated Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case involved Ortho-McNeil's U.S. Patent No. 5,336,691, which covers a pharmaceutical composition of tramadol and acetaminophen in a weight ratio of about 1:5 (Claim 6), used in the pain-relief drug Ultracet. Generic manufacturers Kali, Teva/Barr, and others filed ANDAs seeking to market equivalent products and asserted non-infringement and invalidity defenses. The court granted Kali summary judgment of non-infringement, granted Ortho-McNeil summary judgment of infringement against Teva/Barr, denied summary judgment on certain invalidity grounds such as indefiniteness and public use, but granted summary judgment of invalidity to the defendants on Claim 6, finding it anticipated and obvious in light of prior art references disclosing tramadol combinations and routine optimization of ratios for synergistic effects.
business & regulatoryhealthcare
Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2007-03-21 · cited 1×
The case involved a counterclaim by Coin Acceptors against Mars for contributory and induced infringement of claims in U.S. Patent No. 3,828,903, which describes a vending machine control circuit using a selection monitor to enable dual-use of electrical lines for selection detection and power transmission. The court decided that Mars' 5900-series coin changers, when used in certain vending machines, do not infringe the asserted claims under the court's claim construction. The reasoning centered on detailed analysis of the patent's embodiments, such as relay and optical isolator selection monitors, claim construction of terms like 'in circuit' and 'selection monitor,' and comparisons showing no infringement; alternatively, the claims were found invalid due to lack of enablement, anticipation, or obviousness based on prior art and disclosure requirements.
business & regulatory