Jury Finds Mitsubishi Owes GE $170 Million for Wind Patent Infringement
In a previous post, I discussed a Texas federal court decision denying Mitsubishi’s motion for summary judgment in which it argued it did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705 (’705 Patent) and that the ’705 Patent is invalid.
The ’705 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for operating electrical machines” and directed to methods of facilitating zero voltage ride through so the turbine can remain online during voltage dips down to zero volts.
Now a Texas jury has found that Mitsubishi infringed the ’705 Patent and has awarded GE about $170 million in damages (GE_Verdict_Form).
The jury rejected several of Mitsubishi’s proposed invalidity grounds and found GE had proven lost sales of $166,750,000 due to Mitsubishi’s infringement and that it was entitled to $3,445,000 in a reasonable royalty.
A GE spokesman, Chet Lasell, said “GE firmly believes that protecting our intellectual property rights is the foundation for innovation, investing in high-technology industries and creating high-value jobs. This is certainly true in the wind industry, which holds the hope and the potential for a cleaner energy future.”
Not surprisingly, Mitsubishi took the opposite view. Its spokeswoman, Sonia Williams, said the case should be viewed “within the larger context: as part of a GE litigation strategy that would stifle competition and innovation in wind turbine technology.” (see previous posts here and here about Mitsubishi’s antitrust allegations).
Mitsubishi’s statement also noted that the trial will now proceed to a second phase relating to Mitsubishi’s allegations that GE engaged in inequitable conduct in procuring the ’705 Patent.
But this is the second recent victory for GE against Mitsubishi. The Federal Circuit recently reversed a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling of no domestic industry with respect to GE’s U.S. Patent No. 6,921,985, entitled “Low voltage ride through for wind turbine generators,” giving GE another shot at Mitsubishi in the ITC.
Eric Lane is a patent attorney at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps in San Diego and the author of Green Patent Blog. Mr. Lane can be reached at email@example.com.
|Tags: GE intellectual property rights Mitsubishi Patent wind industry wind turbine||[ Permalink ]|