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
Electronic Sign

Unisplay S.A. v. American Electronic Sign and Indicator Company, Luke Williams, et al.

Published: Aug. 13, 1994 | Result Date: May 27, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CS92214CRW –  $1,628,950

Judge

Charles Weiner

Court

USDC Eastern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

F. Ross Boundy

Stacy Quan


Defendant

Ramsey Al Salam

Paul T. Meiklejohn


Experts

Plaintiff

Mel Goldenberg
(technical)

Gary Burns
(technical)

Richard Allyn
(technical)

Defendant

Jim Leigh
(technical)

Brent Brown
(technical)

Gordon Budke
(technical)

Facts

Unisplay S.A., the Plaintiff in the instant case, is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,163,332 directed to a backlit sign having magnetically actuated solar reflective flaps, which Unisplay promotes as its Solar Glo display. Defendant Luke Williams was a founder and officer of American Sign & Indicator Company (AS&I) which he sold to the Brae Corporation in 1983. Williams first became acquainted with Unisplay when AS&I licensed Unisplay's patent on its Unex electronic sign technology in the 1970's. After Williams sold AS&I, he served as a representative of Unisplay to find a licensee for its Solar Glo patent. In 1988, Williams formed American On-Premise Advertising Company (now American Electronic Sign Company) to make and sell a backlit, solar reflective sign which he called the Solartronic display. At the time he entered the market with his Solartronic display, Williams claimed to have a patent on his technology. However, this proved to be untrue.

Settlement Discussions

Offers and demands were not disclosed.

Damages

A reasonable royalty in the amount of $1,628,950.

Other Information

Motions for increased damages, attorneys' fees, and prejudgment interest are pending.

Deliberation

5 hours

Poll

6-0

Length

8 days


#106012

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

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