This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Apparatus

Sunbelt Automated Systems, Inc. v. Amrep

Published: Jul. 29, 1995 | Result Date: Jun. 16, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 941262RAP –  $1,706,280

Judge

Richard A. Paez

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Morgan W. Tovey

Scott D. Baker

Adaline J. Hilgard

Raoul D. Kennedy
(Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP)


Defendant

Michael Jester

Walter W. Duft


Experts

Plaintiff

Richard Pimentel
(technical)

Marc Stragier
(technical)

Richard Bardin
(technical)

Defendant

Patrick Schlesinger
(technical)

Facts

This case stems out of Los Angeles County's requirement that its garbage collectors use a pickup system that does not interfere with on-street parking. Plaintiff Sunbelt Automated Systems, Inc., developed and patented an extendible side-loading arm for garbage trucks, which can reach between parked cars to lift and dump garbage cans. Because the original patent issued in 1991, included an error, Sunbelt applied for a reissue patent to correct the mistake. Plaintiff claimed that in the interim, Defendant Amrep, a refuse truck manufacturer, began manufacturing garbage trucks with a similar design. Defendant claimed it began manufacturing garbage trucks with an automated side loader of its own design prior to issuance of Plaintiff's original patent and that that design did not infringe the original patent. Sunbelt notified Amrep that the Amrep trucks infringed on Sunbelt's patent, but Amrep allegedly refused to stop producing trucks using the automated side loading design after the corrected Sunbelt patent was reissued in 1993.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff contends that there were no substantial demands or offers exchanged prior to trial.

Damages

$6,200,000 in lost profits.

Result

The jury found: 1) Sunbelt's patent is valid and enforceable; 2) Amrep infringed Sunbelt's patent; 3) Amrep's infringement was willful; and 4) Sunbelt is entitled to damages of $1,706,282. Sunbelt's request for a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and attorneys' fees as a result of the jury's finding of willfulness; and Amrep's request for intervening rights still pending.

Deliberation

8.5 hours

Poll

8-0

Length

10 days


#104001

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390