Comment
Rate
Judge overturns jury's $8.9 million award against Hallmark in patent case
| Advertisement |
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A federal judge has overturned a jury's $8.9 million damage award in a patent infringement suit against Hallmark Cards Inc. involving a machine that curls ribbons.
In September, the jury found that Hallmark infringed patents belonging to a British company, Group One, and its owner, Fredric Goldstein. The jury also found the Kansas City-based greeting-card maker acted willfully, which could have tripled the damages in the case.
But in an order signed last week, U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple said the jury should have found in Hallmark's favor because the patents in question are invalid and never should have been granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
"We think the order speaks for itself," Hallmark spokeswoman Julie O'Dell said. "Hallmark felt all along that the original issues were unfounded."
In their suit, Group One and Goldstein said Hallmark stole ideas for two machines he patented that created curled, cascading ribbon to decorate gift packages.
Whipple, however, called the verdict "irrational."
"One could speculate that the jury's irrational verdict was based on passion and not the law," the judge wrote. "One could also speculate that the jury developed a 'David v. Goliath' bias against Hallmark."
According to court records, Goldstein contacted Hallmark in June 1991 to discuss a machine he had developed to make decorative curled ribbons.
During a telephone conference on Feb. 14, 1992, Goldstein discussed his machine with a Hallmark engineer and a meeting was scheduled for three days later. But Hallmark canceled the meeting, according to the court documents.
In July 1992, privately held Hallmark informed Goldstein it had designed its own machine to curl and shred ribbon. In early 1995, Hallmark began making the curled ribbons used to adorn packages.
Group One and Goldstein filed a patent infringement case against Hallmark in 1997, alleging Hallmark stole his ideas.
Part of Hallmark's defense was that the U.S. Patent Office erred in granting two patents to Goldstein because an invention must meet two general standards - it must be "novel" and not be "obvious."
Whipple wrote that the two patents issued to Goldstein were "obvious" as defined by patent law, citing a number of previously issued patents that should have been studied in reviewing the patent requests.
Attorneys for Goldstein said they were surprised and disappointed at the decision, and said they planned to file an appeal within a week. "We think that decision is wrong," said attorney Robert Neuner.
In September, the jury found that Hallmark infringed patents belonging to a British company, Group One, and its owner, Fredric Goldstein. The jury also found the Kansas City-based greeting-card maker acted willfully, which could have tripled the damages in the case.
But in an order signed last week, U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple said the jury should have found in Hallmark's favor because the patents in question are invalid and never should have been granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
"We think the order speaks for itself," Hallmark spokeswoman Julie O'Dell said. "Hallmark felt all along that the original issues were unfounded."
In their suit, Group One and Goldstein said Hallmark stole ideas for two machines he patented that created curled, cascading ribbon to decorate gift packages.
Whipple, however, called the verdict "irrational."
"One could speculate that the jury's irrational verdict was based on passion and not the law," the judge wrote. "One could also speculate that the jury developed a 'David v. Goliath' bias against Hallmark."
According to court records, Goldstein contacted Hallmark in June 1991 to discuss a machine he had developed to make decorative curled ribbons.
During a telephone conference on Feb. 14, 1992, Goldstein discussed his machine with a Hallmark engineer and a meeting was scheduled for three days later. But Hallmark canceled the meeting, according to the court documents.
In July 1992, privately held Hallmark informed Goldstein it had designed its own machine to curl and shred ribbon. In early 1995, Hallmark began making the curled ribbons used to adorn packages.
Group One and Goldstein filed a patent infringement case against Hallmark in 1997, alleging Hallmark stole his ideas.
Part of Hallmark's defense was that the U.S. Patent Office erred in granting two patents to Goldstein because an invention must meet two general standards - it must be "novel" and not be "obvious."
Whipple wrote that the two patents issued to Goldstein were "obvious" as defined by patent law, citing a number of previously issued patents that should have been studied in reviewing the patent requests.
Attorneys for Goldstein said they were surprised and disappointed at the decision, and said they planned to file an appeal within a week. "We think that decision is wrong," said attorney Robert Neuner.
 |
||
| Kansas meatpacker plans to test all cattle for mad cow |
Article Rating |
|
RSS
