Lack Of Standing Is Fatal To Lost Profits Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.04.08
In Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., (No. 07-1409, -1436, June 2, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a district court's summary judgment excluding Mars' lost profits claim prior to 1996 based upon manufacture and sale by its former subsidiary which was non-exclusively licensed to use Mars' patented technology. However, the determination that Mars had standing to recover damages from 1996 to 2003 is reversed. The Federal Circuit affirms the district court's assessment of a 7% reasonable royalty rate and remands to the district court for recalculation of damages for the period prior to 1996. The panel relies on the Federal Circuit's 2004 Poly-America L.P. v. GSE Licensing Technology, Inc. decision which held that a patent holder is not entitled to recover under a lost profits theory as a result of sales lost by a sister corporation, absent a showing that the patent holder itself or its exclusive licensee had lost profits. Therefore, a non-exclusive licensee such as Mars' subsidiary did not have constitutional standing. Regarding the 1996-2003 period, Mars' lack of standing is found not to have been cured by a Confirmation Agreement transferring back to Mars the rights to the '137 and '719 patents before final judgment.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate

