Lost Profits Not Recoverable For Convoyed Sales Without Adequate Relationship Between Components
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.08
In American Seating Co. v. USSC Group, Inc. (Nos. 2007-1112, 2007-1135; January 29, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms, inter alia, a motion for judgment as a matter of law setting aside a portion of a jury verdict compensating patentee American Seating for convoyed sales of passenger seats related to USSC's infringement of a patent for an ADA-compliant, wheelchair restraint device for mass transit vehicles.
The Court observes that a "patentee may recover lost profits on unpatented components sold with a patented item, a convoyed sale, if both the patented and unpatented products 'together were considered to be components of a single assembly or parts of a complete machine, or they together constituted a functional unit.'" Reviewing the evidence, the Court notes that the patent does not cover passenger seats, the restraint device operates independently of the passenger seats, and bus buyers do not require passenger seats and restraint devices be purchased from the same company. Thus, without an interrelated or functional relationship between the seats and the restraint device, the Court finds that "the district court was correct that the jury has no basis to conclude that lost profits on collateral sales of passenger seats were due American Seating."
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25