From Tronzo v. Biomet , 318 F.3d 1378 (2003):
2
Adv Pat Seminar 11/15/05 rjm From Tronzo v. Biomet , 318 F.3d 1378 (2003): In Dr. Tronzo's suit against Biomet the jury rendered special verdicts of patent infringement, fraud, and breach of confidential relationship. [Dr. Tronzo was awarded $ 3,805,000 = compensatory damages (jury) $ 1,902,500 = enhancement (court) for willful infringement, $ 20,000,000 = punitive damages (jury)] On appeal this court affirmed the verdicts of liability as to the [STATE LAW] tort claims, but ruled that Dr. Tronzo's patent was invalid, and remanded for recomputation of compensatory damages. The award of punitive damages was not appealed [by either party]. (RYAN’s case: Tronzo II (1998)). On remand the district court recomputed the compensatory damages as limited to the fees that Dr. Tronzo had paid to the [PTO] amounting to $ 520. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $ 52,000, deeming the original award excessive in light of the reduction in compensatory damages. (SDFla 1999, Tronzo III). Dr. Tronzo appealed, and this court - affirmed the reduced compensatory damages but - reversed the reduction in punitive damages, holding that in disturbing the unappealed punitive award, the district court exceeded its mandate on remand. (Fed Cir 2001Tronzo IV:) Tronzo – post script, plus interesting Vornado -like issue…
-
Upload
wanda-ortiz -
Category
Documents
-
view
25 -
download
2
description
Tronzo – post script, plus interesting Vornado -like issue…. From Tronzo v. Biomet , 318 F.3d 1378 (2003): In Dr. Tronzo's suit against Biomet the jury rendered special verdicts of patent infringement, fraud, and breach of confidential relationship. [Dr. Tronzo was awarded - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of From Tronzo v. Biomet , 318 F.3d 1378 (2003):
Adv Pat Seminar 11/15/05 rjm
From Tronzo v. Biomet, 318 F.3d 1378 (2003):In Dr. Tronzo's suit against Biomet the jury rendered special verdicts of
patent infringement, fraud, and breach of confidential relationship.
[Dr. Tronzo was awarded$ 3,805,000 = compensatory damages (jury)$ 1,902,500 = enhancement (court) for willful infringement, $ 20,000,000 = punitive damages (jury)]
On appeal this court affirmed the verdicts of liability as to the [STATE LAW] tort claims, but ruled that Dr. Tronzo's patent was invalid, and remanded for recomputation of compensatory damages. The award of punitive damages was not appealed [by either party]. (RYAN’s case: Tronzo II (1998)). On remand the district court recomputed the compensatory damages as limited to the fees that Dr. Tronzo had paid to the [PTO] amounting to $ 520. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $ 52,000, deeming the original award excessive in light of the reduction in compensatory damages. (SDFla 1999, Tronzo III). Dr. Tronzo appealed, and this court - affirmed the reduced compensatory damages but
- reversed the reduction in punitive damages, holding that in disturbing the unappealed punitive award, the district court exceeded its mandate on remand. (Fed Cir 2001Tronzo IV:)
(On remand, the SDFla court has lost ‘arising under’ jurisdiction, but because of the WPC rule, the appeals of purely state law issues still go to the Fed. Cir. )
Tronzo – post script, plus interesting Vornado-like issue…
Adv Pat Seminar 11/15/05 rjm
Back in the district court, the parties disputed the calculation of interest on the punitive damages. Dr. Tronzo argued that interest should run from the initial judgment in 1996, while Biomet argued that it should run from the date of the district court's action on this court's mandate in Tronzo IV. The district court agreed with Dr. Tronzo, and awarded interest from the 1996 date. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., No. 91-8175 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2001, corrected August 20, 2001) (Tronzo V). This appeal by Biomet followed. [On 2/12/2003, the Fed Cir vacated the award, and decided that the interest should accrue from 2001.]
Who won the war?
