Datascope Corp. v. Smec, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting evidence at trial as to an available alternative design because that design was not on the market
• filing of “‘cross-appeal’ for the ‘sole purpose of preserving [the] right to offer arguments in support of the judgment’ is improper.”
• finding an annual compounding of interest appropriate where the district court reasonably credited evidence that the infringer could not report royalties more often than annually
• affirming an 7 award of prejudgment interest at the prime rate compounded annually
• the appellate court was “unconvinced” that a rate above the T-Bill rate was necessary to adequately compensate the patentee holder
• a finding of no willful infringement was reversed where “the district court seriously underestimated ... the court’s own finding about the market pressure and urgency faced by SMEC.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).