Metso Minerals' Patent Rights Upheld

December 13, 2011

Metso Minerals, Inc., a global supplier of technology and services for the mining and construction industries, successfully defended its patent rights against Terex Corporation, a global manufacturer of heavy machinery, one of its subsidiaries and two of its dealers. The final judgment is expected to lead to a total of $50 million in damages.

In December 2010, a jury had awarded Metso Minerals, Inc. $15.8 million in damages for patent infringement nearly five years after the Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Limited et al lawsuit began. The first named defendant is now known as Terex GB Limited, and the other defendants include its corporate parent, Terex Corporation, and two of their distributors, Emerald Equipment Systems, Inc. and Powerscreen New York, Inc.

On December 9, 2011, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York affirmed the jury’s verdict of one year earlier, which was reached after a seven-week trial. The jury verdict had held that the defendants willfully infringed Metso’s U.S. Patent No. 5,577,618 directed to mobile screening and crushing machines. In the court’s decision, each of the defendants’ four motions to overturn the jury’s verdict and/or for a new trial were dismissed. 

The court affirmed the jury’s verdict that Metso’s patent was infringed, that it was infringed willfully, that the patent was not obvious, that the patent was not unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct, and that Metso had not delayed commencing its lawsuit. The court also doubled the primary damages award (raising it to $31.6 million), ordered an accounting for supplemental damages for October 2007 to the present that were not included in the jury’s damages award, and awarded pre- and post-judgment interest.

In July 2011, the court issued an order permanently enjoining the defendants from marketing their 11 infringing mobile screeners. It is estimated that after all of the accounting is completed, the final amount of the judgment in this case could reach $50 million.

Source: Cozen O'Connor

x
expand_less