Home/Federal Circuit/Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc.

Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc.

794 F.2d 1561, 55 U.S.L.W. 2092, 230 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 112, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided June 16, 1986·No. Appeal 85-2226·Published·Cited by 41 cases

Opinion

BALDWIN, Circuit Judge.

Shiley, Inc. (Shiley) sued Bentley Laboratories, Inc. (Bentley) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,065,264 (’264) and 4,138,-288 (’288). Bentley counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement. The action was tried to a jury, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff on all issues. The special verdict included jury findings that none of the claims in suit was invalid, that plaintiff was entitled to recover its lost profits in the amount of $17,528,000, that a reasonable royalty is twelve percent (12%) of the selling price of the accused device, that plaintiff did not commit inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and that defendant’s infringement was willful. The court denied defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), treated the jury finding of willful infringement as merely advisory, made an independent finding of willful infringement, and awarded double damages, attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and a permanent injunction. A final, amended judgment in the amount of $44,248,137 was entered against Bentley on March 13,1985. Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc., 601 F.Supp. 964, 225 USPQ 1013 (C.D.Cal.1985).

Bentley appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment on the jury verdict and charges the district court with abuse of discretion in calculating the damage award based on the issuance date of the '264 patent, in doubling the damage award based on the finding of willful infringement, and in denying Bentley’s motion for new trial based on prejudicial error. We affirm.

Background

The patents in suit relate to a high efficiency heat exchanger designed for use with a blood oxygenator (the “lung” portion of the heart-lung machine employed during open heart surgery). The heat exchanger is used to lower the temperature of the blood prior to and during surgery, and then to rewarm the blood to normal temperature. The cooled blood induces a condition called hypothermia, characterized by slowed functioning of the vital organs and overall reduced oxygen consumption by the patient. Hypothermia gives the surgeon time to perform a surgical procedure and enhances the patient’s likelihood of survival.

The heat exchanger of this invention can be formed from tubing which has a hollow, helical (spiral) rib along its length. The tubing is wrapped around a cylinder and then encased in a tight-fitting shell. Heated or cooled water flows through the inside of the tubing, while the blood flows along the outside.

*1557 IQvnRRdaYVMCfI2lfAjMgxCFi/PH1WrdiyqbNVmS6cqlLG3v7i9TgF95lo9Vh0+CCyifBUFDaB14cmcZCEHx9BDC6rjedwhYYq84ryPyOXlxVj+crIXyzZfqLJooFw6W2BgbCH7LqywfaW/E3JuxeDWhcpAhQj8sfz5mC9oPeethDvVJvfwpIu36nJqES1Upw1EvnHK+NIFuHbrJ9RyB6kxTveoh4K7nFb8kcIDpEpuLOWMh/oemfP8AJ2hPU73341nXrhDLCzZJl/IPaCC01RCp/Gn4NXcUti4jVdJxvY9fUqJDxkBIXSduDoS2UCELH/TY8loTBdUfFVIoQU+B8vFrKVaEcMdRRSofd9yWJqz/jIqnx6xDn00W845a9Bntzooks35+iB7lppOzoaE3PjwrXujj32yxvtQc0Wfm5jTzadwqg1YNzVUoH44TegqW05fqhpB6ldEcSuu2rMl

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

Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc., 794 F.2d 1561, 55 U.S.L.W. 2092, 230 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 112, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 20277 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

794 F.2d 1561 (Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
D. Delaware, 2026
SharkNinja Operating LLC v. Dyson, Inc.
D. Massachusetts, 2024
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
E.D. Virginia, 2024
Gavrieli Brands LLC v. Lovie Pearl GmbH
C.D. California, 2023
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.
D. Massachusetts, 2020
Wcm Industries, Inc. v. Ips Corporation
Federal Circuit, 2018
JJK Mineral Co., LLC v. Swiger
292 F.R.D. 323 (N.D. West Virginia, 2013)
Agfa Corp. v. Creo Products, Inc.
451 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Agfa Corporation v. Creo Products Inc.
451 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Honeywell International, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp.
397 F. Supp. 2d 537 (D. Delaware, 2005)
Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transport Corp.
388 F. Supp. 2d 37 (N.D. New York, 2005)
PEARL INVESTMENTS, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc.
297 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Maine, 2004)
Greene, Tweed of Delaware, Inc. v. Dupont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C.
202 F.R.D. 418 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2001)
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.
106 F. Supp. 2d 696 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
Century Wrecker Corp. v. E.R. Buske Manufacturing Co.
913 F. Supp. 1256 (N.D. Iowa, 1996)
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.
976 F.2d 1559 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.
805 F. Supp. 252 (D. Delaware, 1992)
T.A. Pelsue Co. v. Grand Enterprises, Inc.
782 F. Supp. 1476 (D. Colorado, 1991)
GTE Products Corp. v. Kennametal, Inc.
772 F. Supp. 907 (W.D. Virginia, 1991)
In Re Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. Patent Litigation
766 F. Supp. 818 (N.D. California, 1991)