Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp.

E.D. California

Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp.

842 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156007, 2011 WL 7124687

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California

DecidedJanuary 24, 2011

DocketCase No. 1:05-cv-01411-OWW-GSA

StatusPublished

This text of 842 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156007, 2011 WL 7124687 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT CAMERON’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO LOST-PROFITS DAMAGES

(Doc. 319 and 430)

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

Pending before this Court is Defendant Cameron’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Lost Profits Damages (Docket No. 319), including Cameron’s Supplemental briefing (Docket No. 430) directed to Duhn Oil Tool, Inc.’s (“Duhn Oil”) status as a holding company after its December 19, 2007 acquisition by Seaboard International, Inc. (“Seaboard”). Based on the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion should be and is hereby GRANTED in part as follows.

After Seaboard’s acquisition of Duhn Oil, Duhn Oil’s operations were transferred to Seaboard. Duhn Oil is still in existence and has consolidated financial statements; however, the business expenses incurred to produce the frac mandrel products and the services related to the patented frac mandrel products are now incurred by Seaboard. Seaboard does all billing, invoices the frac mandrel products, receives the related revenue, and reflects the related revenue or loss on its consolidated financial statement. Duhn Oil has not assigned the patent-in-suit to Seaboard nor granted a license to Seaboard. This evidence establishes that, since the stock acquisition and restructuring of operations, as a matter of law, these profits and losses are, in effect, the profits and losses of Seaboard, a non-party.

As a matter of law, Duhn Oil is entitled to lost-profits damages for any alleged infringement of the '925 Patent only through the date Duhn Oil proves it actually practiced the invention and earned or lost income from these operations. Duhn Oil cannot recover lost profits after the date Duhn Oil’s '925 Patent operations ceased. The precise date when this occurred is a question of fact for the jury to decide. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT CAMERON’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO LOST-PROFITS DAMAGES

(Doc. 319 and 430)

OLIVER W. WANGER, District Judge.

Pending before this Court is Defendant Cameron’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Lost Profits Damages (Docket No. 319), including Cameron’s Supplemental briefing (Docket No. 430) directed to Duhn Oil Tool, Inc.’s (“Duhn Oil”) status as a holding company after its December 19, 2007 acquisition by Seaboard International, Inc. (“Seaboard”). Based on the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion should be and is hereby GRANTED in part as follows.

After Seaboard’s acquisition of Duhn Oil, Duhn Oil’s operations were transferred to Seaboard. Duhn Oil is still in existence and has consolidated financial statements; however, the business expenses incurred to produce the frac mandrel products and the services related to the patented frac mandrel products are now incurred by Seaboard. Seaboard does all billing, invoices the frac mandrel products, receives the related revenue, and reflects the related revenue or loss on its consolidated financial statement. Duhn Oil has not assigned the patent-in-suit to Seaboard nor granted a license to Seaboard. This evidence establishes that, since the stock acquisition and restructuring of operations, as a matter of law, these profits and losses are, in effect, the profits and losses of Seaboard, a non-party.

As a matter of law, Duhn Oil is entitled to lost-profits damages for any alleged infringement of the '925 Patent only through the date Duhn Oil proves it actually practiced the invention and earned or lost income from these operations. Duhn Oil cannot recover lost profits after the date Duhn Oil’s '925 Patent operations ceased. The precise date when this occurred is a question of fact for the jury to decide. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 F. Supp. 2d 1242, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156007, 2011 WL 7124687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duhn-oil-tool-inc-v-cooper-cameron-corp-caed-2011.