Breaking Down the CompX Decision
As we posted here, Judge Spencer upheld CompX International’s $39 million jury verdict against Humanscale Corporation for patent infringement. In keeping with our motto that “We read the opinions so you don’t have to,” here’s a bullet-point summary of Judge Spencer’s 40-page opinion, which can be found here and is also at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83881 (E.D. Va. Aug. 16, 2010):
- Non-infringement
The Court correctly held that the term “tilting” should be given its ordinary meaning and did not impermissibly allow the jury to define a disputed claim term in violation of O2 Micro Int’l. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech., Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
- Obviousness
Substantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that there was no motivation to combine previous models of CompX’s patented products to include features found in equipment supports for other types of equipment, such as sewing machines, typewriters and ironing boards.
- On-Sale Bar
Humanscale failed to prove that sales of patented products occurred before the critical date.
- Laches
The Court’s most in-depth analysis concerned laches. CompX had brought suit on the same patents a decade earlier, but had dismissed the suit without prejudice nine years before re-filing. The Court held that CompX’s nine-year delay was inexcusable and unreasonable but held that Humanscale failed to prove prejudice.
In a separate ruling, found here, the Court denied CompX's claim for prejudgment interest because of the delay in filing suit, but that is a hollow victory given the size of the damage award.
If nothing else, the ruling illustrates just how difficult it is to prevail on a laches defense. Even with a nine-year delay, Humanscale could not persuade the Court that it had suffered evidentiary or economic prejudice. The case illustrates how hard it is to show evidentiary prejudice when a defendant does not know what evidence has been lost, and it’s even harder for a defendant to adamantly deny it infringes while also claiming that it suffered economic prejudice because it would have behaved differently if suit had been filed earlier.
- Inequitable Conduct, Equitable Estoppel and Inventorship
The Court refused to reconsider its decision to grant judgment as a matter of law on these three defenses, illustrating, as was the case with laches, the heavy burden a defendant bears on these defenses.
