Minco, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the patentee might have been entitled to damages as a result of overpaying for the infringer’s business, if it had proven that the infringing products were an important factor in the sale
• awarding a large amount of reasonable royalty payments based on the competitiveness between the patentee and infringer after the patentee failed to prove lost profits for a portion of the infringer’s sales
• “The district court’s reasonable royalty award already compensates [the patent owner] for any goodwill [the infringer] garnered by infringement.”
• \The district court's reasonable royalty award already compensates [the patent owner] for any goodwill [the infringer] garnered by infringement.\
• “[T]he conveyance of the patent does not normally include the right to recovery for injury occurring to the prior owner.”
• “Under the general rule, the bare reference to all right, title, and interest does not normally transfer the right to sue for past infringement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).