Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, Civil Action No. 97-0590 (PLF).
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Paul L. Friedman |
| Citation | 444 F.Supp.2d 68 |
| Parties | MINEBEA CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Georg PAPST, et al., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 97-0590 (PLF). |
| Decision Date | 17 August 2006 |
v.
Georg PAPST, et al., Defendants.
Page 69
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 70
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 71
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 72
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 73
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 74
Benjamin Levi, Joel E. Lutzker, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York City, Rodney Ray Sweetland, III, Tom M. Schaumberg, Scott Alex Lasher, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP, Washington, DC, Jason
Page 75
Marin, Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
A. Sidney Katz, Jerold B. Schnayer, R. Mark Halligan, Walter J. Kawula, Craig M. Kuchii, Daniel R. Cherry, Richard W. McLaren, Jr., Steven E. Feldman, John L. Ambrogi, Welsh & Katz, Limited, Chicago, IL, Campbell Killefer, Venable LLP, James K. Archibald, Venable LLP, Daniel Joseph, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL FINDINGS..................................................77
I. BACKGROUND...........................................................................77
A. The Joint Venture.................................................................78
B. Minebea's Claims Against Papst....................................................79
II. THE TRIAL............................................................................82
A. Minebea's Witnesses..............................................................82
1. Minebea's Testifying Fact Witnesses..........................................82
2. Minebea's Expert Witnesses...................................................83
B. Papst's Witnesses................................................................84
1. Papst's Testifying Fact Witnesses............................................84
2. Papst's Expert Witnesses.....................................................85
C. Hague Convention Witnesses and Deposition Testimony..............................85
III. FINDINGS OF FACT.....................................................................87
A. Introduction.....................................................................87
B. Creation of the Joint Venture, its Termination, the 1995 Settlement, and
Beyond.........................................................................88
1. The Inception of the Joint Venture...........................................88
2. The Agreements Founding the Joint Venture....................................91
a. The General Business Agreement...........................................92
b. The Joint Venture Agreement..............................................92
c. The Agreement for the Sale of Intangible Assets..........................93
3. Operation of the Joint Venture...............................................94
4. Termination of the Joint Venture.............................................97
5. Post-termination Communications..............................................99
6. The 1995 Settlement Agreement...............................................103
7. Papst's Licensing Agreements With Minebea's Customers.......................104
8. The Instant Litigation and Consolidated Cases...............................105
C. The Written Contracts Define the Parties' Relationship..........................106
1. Minebea's Rights During the Joint Venture...................................106
a. Minebea's rights under Paragraph 4(a) of the Intangible Assets
Agreement............................................................106
i. "Required and Necessary" under the Intangible Assets
Agreement........................................................106
ii. Corresponding international patents...............................109
b. Minebea's rights under Paragraph 4(d) of the Intangible Assets
Agreement........................................................110
2. Minebea's Rights After Termination of the Joint Venture.....................111
3. Minebea's Rights Under the 1995 Settlement Agreement........................113
a. Definitions.............................................................114
b. Scope of rights under the 1995 Settlement Agreement.....................115
c. Minebea's rights to Papst Drive Patents under the 1995 Settlement
Agreement........................................................118
d. Minebea's rights to Papst Patents under the 1995 Settlement
Agreement........................................................118
Page 76
e. Minebea's rights to Future Patents under the 1995 Settlement
Agreement........................................................120
f. Summary of Minebea's patent rights after Settlement.....................124
D. The Parties Always Understood the Distinction Between Drive Patents
and Motor Patents................................................125
E. The Parties Always Understood that Papst Could Sue Minebea's
Customers Under the Drive Patents................................129
PART TWO: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW..............................................................133
I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.........................................................133
II. COUNT I: PATENT EXHAUSTION..........................................................136
A. The Law of Patent Exhaustion....................................................137
B. Sales "Under" United States Patents.............................................139
1. Must a Sale "Under" a U.S. Patent Occur in the United States?...............139
2. Minebea's Sales in the United States........................................142
a. The evidence adduced on summary judgment and at trial...................143
b. The specific motors claimed.............................................146
i. Hewlett Packard...................................................146
ii. Quantum...........................................................148
iii. Conner Peripherals................................................149
iv. Seagate...........................................................150
v. Maxtor............................................................150
vi. Western Digital...................................................151
vii. IBM...............................................................151
c. Which motor sales occurred under United States patents?.................151
C. Minebea's Authority to Sell Motors..............................................151
1. Patents Related to HP Wolverine III Motors..................................152
a. U.S. Patent No. 4,894,738...............................................152
b. U.S. Patent No. 4,843,500...............................................153
c. U.S. Patent No. 5,173,814...............................................154
2. Patents Related to Quantum Empire Motors....................................155
a. Re 34,412...............................................................155
b. U.S. Patent No. 4,519,010...............................................155
c. U.S. Patent No. 4,535,373...............................................156
d. U.S. Patent No. 5,006,943...............................................156
e. U.S. Patent No. 4,658,312...............................................157
D. Unconditional Sale..............................................................157
E. Essential Feature/No Non-infringing Use.........................................160
1. Non-infringing Uses of Minebea Motors.......................................162
a. There are no reasonable uses for Minebea motors that do not
involve incorporation into hard disk drives...........................162
b. Minebea's motors have no HDD-related uses that do not involve
assembly into potentially infringing hard drives......................164
2. Essential Features..........................................................166
F. Conclusion......................................................................169
III. COUNT V: CONVERSION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT...........................................170
A. Factual Background..............................................................170
B. Papst's Defenses................................................................172
1. Statute of Limitations......................................................172
a. When did Minebea's claims accrue?.......................................172
b. The law of inquiry notice...............................................174
c. Was Minebea on inquiry notice?..........................................175
2. Releases....................................................................178
3. The Mannheim Court Decision.................................................180
C. The Merits of Minebea's Count V Claims..........................................181
1. Conversion by Breach of Contract............................................181
Page 77
2. German Penal Code Claim 183
3. Unjust Enrichment 184
4. Claim for an Accounting 187
IV. COUNT X: LICENSE RIGHTS AND BREACH OF CONTRACT......................................187
A. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing...............................188
1. Implied Term................................................................189
a. Appendix III Patents....................................................189
b. Non-Appendix III Patents................................................193
2. Subjective Bad Faith........................................................194
B. Express Breach of Contract......................................................196
V. COUNT XIII: EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, LEGAL ESTOPPEL AND
IMPLIED LICENSE....................................................................197
A....To continue reading
Request your trial
33 practice notes
-
Smith v. U.S., Civil Action No. 06-633 (RBW).
...F.2d at 745 ("Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden and duty of exercising due diligence."); see generally Minebea Co. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 175 (D.D.C.2006) ("Normally, a defendant asserting an affirmative defense such as the statute of limitations bears the burden of demonstra......
-
Static Control Components v. Lexmark Intern., 5:02-571.
...applies to the sale of an article is whether that article was first sold in the United States or overseas. See Minebea Co. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 142 (D.D.C.2006). The nature of the patented article, disposable cameras, in Jazz Photo being "of foreign provenance" merely served as proof......
-
Regnante v. Sec. & Exch. Officials, 14 Civ. 4880(KPF).
...However, the law of unjust enrichment in New York and in the District of Columbia is "substantially the same." Minebea Co. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 186 n. 92 (D.D.C.2006). Given the parties' silence on the issue and the similarities between the law in New York and the District of Columbi......
-
Campbell v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Civil Action No.: 14–0892(RC)
...the existence of a contractual agreement that foreclosed an unjust enrichment claim, the claim must be dismissed); Minebea Co. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 186 (D.D.C.2006) (holding that unjust enrichment claim premised on the paid-for purchase of a patent portfolio failed where all parties ......
Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
-
Smith v. U.S., Civil Action No. 06-633 (RBW).
...F.2d at 745 ("Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden and duty of exercising due diligence."); see generally Minebea Co. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 175 (D.D.C.2006) ("Normally, a defendant asserting an affirmative defense such as the statute of limitations bears the burden of demonstra......
-
In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig., Master File No. 12–md–02311.
...In re Processed Eggs, 851 F.Supp.2d at 934 (no requirement of direct benefit to defendant under Utah law); Minebea Co. Ltd. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 86 (D.C.2006) (involving payment for a patent by joint venture partner); In re (Flat Panel), 2011 WL 4501223 at *12 (rejecting argument tha......
-
In re Actions, Master File No. 12–md–02311.
...In re Processed Egg, 851 F.Supp.2d at 934 (no requirement of direct benefit to defendant under Utah law); Minebea Co. Ltd. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 186 (D.D.C.2006) (involving payment for a patent by joint venture partner); In re (Flat Panel), 2011 WL 4501223 at *12 (rejecting argument t......
-
In re Actions, Master File No. 12–md–02311.
...In re Processed Egg, 851 F.Supp.2d at 934 (no requirement of direct benefit to defendant under Utah law); Minebea Co. Ltd. v. Papst, 444 F.Supp.2d 68, 186 (D.D.C.2006) (involving payment for a patent by joint venture partner); In re (Flat Panel), 2011 WL 4501223 at *12 (rejecting argument t......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
-
Experts
...66-67 (1st Cir. 2002) (in antitrust action, listing professional soccer leagues from numerous countries); Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 444 F. Supp. 2d 68, 145 (D.D.C. 2006) (in complex patent bench trial, charts showing customers and computer hard disc drives by motor projects and manufactur......
-
Table of Cases
...Jan. 6, 2014), 115 Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., 73 F. Supp. 3d 544 (W.D. Pa. 2014), 122 Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 444 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2006), appeal dismissed based on dismissal agreement, 224 F. App’x 962 (Fed. Cir. 2007), 227 Missouri v. W.E.R. (In re Grand Jur......
-
The United States of America
...paid for different sets of rights under the same patents. 189. 553 U.S. 617 (2009). 190. Id. at 631-33. 191. Id. at 631-35. 192. 444 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2006). 193. Id. at 210-13, 215-16, 219-20. 40 Antitrust Issues in International IP Licensing Transactions Minebea paid a royalty “to di......
-
Table of cases
...Eng’g, 95 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................... 20 Minebea Co. v. Pabst, 444 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2006) .................................................. 39, 40 Möbelwachspaste, BGH, Mar. 15, 1955, 1955 GRUR 424 .............................
Request a trial to view additional results