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

Mytee Products Inc. v. Harris Research Inc.

Published: Mar. 27, 2010 | Result Date: Oct. 21, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 06CV01854(CAB) Verdict –  Counterclaim: $36,165

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Frederic G. Ludwig III

Frederick K. Taylor
(Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP)

Anthony J. Dain
(Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP)

Lisel M. Ferguson
(Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP)


Defendant

Stephen H. Smith
(Yoka & Smith LLP)

Shaun L. Peck


Experts

Plaintiff

Frederick Thompson
(technical)

James K. Sakaguchi
(technical)

Defendant

Scott Cragun
(technical)

Jonathan Richards
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Mytee Products Inc. made a product called 'Banana Glide.' Mytee alleged three patents - Patent Nos. 6,298,577 (577), 6,266,892 (892), and 6,981,338 (338) - belonging to defendant Harris Research Inc. were invalid and that Banana Glide did not infringe on them. Harris counterclaimed for infringement of the patents-in-suit. Later, Harris dismissed its counterclaim with regards to 338 in anticipation of a prior art reference. Harris later dedicated 338 to the public.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Mytee claimed Harris' patents were invalid and that Mytee's product did not infringe on them even if they were valid. Further, Harris' patent infringement claim was an exceptional case for which attorney fees may be awarded.

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Harris claimed Mytee willfully infringed its patents and was liable for damages.

Result

The jury found that Mytee infringed on the 577 and 892 patents, but that the infringement was not willful, and awarded Harris damages of $36,165.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Sept. 13, 2006.


#119175

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

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