Grain Processing Corporation v. American Maize-Products Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a noninfringing substitute was both “available” and “acceptable” during the accounting period, thus failing Panduit’s second factor
• holding that customers would have found a particular claim limitation “irrelevant,” so the patentee could not rely on that limitation for the second Panduit factor
• holding that an alleged substitute need not be on the market during the infringement period in order to constitute an acceptable substitute
• finding American Maize’s production cost difference between infringing and noninfringing product “effectively capped the reasonable royalty award”
• finding American Maize's production cost difference between infringing and noninfringing product \effectively capped the reasonable royalty award\
• finding that the difference between the production costs of the infringing and noninfringing products would “effectively cap[] the reasonable royalty award” because under the facts, the defendant would not have paid more than that in a hypothetical negotiation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).