Happy Woodchuck (a/k/a Groundhog) Day!
You don't often see defendants wanting to talk about "wealth" in a jury trial. But, in a patent infringement case that the Federal Circuit decided today, the defendants did just that. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc., No. 07-1430 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2009).
The lawsuit concerned patents that "relate to treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction". After a six-week trial in San Antonio, Texas, the jury returned a verdict that rejected the defendants' obviousness and unenforceability defenses but also declined to find infringement. The district court (per Hon. W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.) entered judgment on the verdict and denied a welter of post-trial motions, including plaintiffs' motion for new trial on the ground that the defendants improperly appealed to jurors' disdain for rich people trying to get richer at the courthouse. Defense counsel said the plaintiffs' owner wanted to "make a lot of money" off the patents.
The Federal Circuit affirmed:
KCI alleges that Defendants’ . . . "blatant class-warfare arguments," including references to KCI’s wealth and the need for an inexpensive alternative to the VAC, prejudiced the jury and resulted in an incorrect verdict.
Blue Sky . . . argues that its references to KCI’s wealth were relevant to prove the bias of KCI’s witnesses and respond to KCI’s arguments that Blue Sky was more interested in profits than patients.
We agree with Defendants and the district court that the arguments to which KCI objects had proper uses or were made in response to issues raised by KCI. The district court expressly found that Defendants’ arguments did not amount to class warfare. Additionally, the jury was specifically instructed that it should not treat anyone unfairly based on wealth. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of KCI’s motion for a new trial.
Kinetic Concepts, slip op. at 23-24.
Comments