Sig Sauer v. Freed Designs

2015 DNH 198

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 23, 2015
• Docket: 14-cv-461-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sig Sauer, Inc., Check-Mate Industries, Inc., Check-Mate International Products, Inc., Nordon, Inc., and Thomas Pierce d/b/a Pierce Designs, Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 14-cv-461-SM Opinion No. 2015 DNH 198 Freed Designs, Inc., Defendant

O R D E R

Sig Sauer’s (et al.) motion for partial summary judgment

with respect to lost profits (document no. 28) is denied without

prejudice.

Although the issue may arise again, for purposes of

resolving this motion, Sig Sauer concedes that Freed Designs held

an implied exclusive license during the claimed patent

infringement period. Sig Sauer next asserts that an “implied”

exclusive license cannot recover lost profits damages. It cites

no authority supporting the notion that while an exclusive

licensee may recover lost profits damages for infringement, an

implied exclusive licensee may not. The Federal Circuit does not

seem to have drawn such a distinction, and I can see no rational

reason to do so. See e.g. Weinar v. Rollform Inc., 744 F.2d 797, 806-08 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming award of lost profit damages

to a licensee with the exclusive right to sell in the entire

United States); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,

Inc., 469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

October 23, 2015

cc: Brian M. Gaff, Esq. Neal E. Friedman, Esq. Michael J. Bujold, Esq.