In 2003 and again in 2006, plaintiff Cooper Technologies Inc., a Houston-based manufacturer of electrical equipment, obtained patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on two of its products -- connectors used by utilities to distribute high-voltage electricity. The primary U.S. producer of competing products of this type was Thomas & Betts Corp., a Memphis, Tenn.-based corporation.
Cooper sued Thomas & Betts, alleging patent infringement. Cooper claimed Thomas & Betts connectors infringed on its patents by incorporating a colored band designed to show if the electrical components connected correctly. Cooper claimed it invented this technology in 1993 and has exclusive rights to connectors using such bands.
Thomas & Betts denied patent infringement, arguing that the patents in question were invalid. The defense claimed that colored bands of the type used on Cooper's products have been in use on similar devices since the 1960s, and that Thomas & Betts began using the bands in the 1970s.
Thomas & Betts disputed the damages, claiming Cooper's estimate of the contibrution of the technology in dispute to the value of the products was exaggerated.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.
No. 2:06-cv-242
DATE OF VERDICT/SETTLEMENT: September 11, 2008
SUMMARY:
RESULT: Verdict-Defendant
The jury found Cooper's patents were anticipated by prior art and were invalid.
EXPERT WITNESSES:
Plaintiff: Harry Orton; Engineering; Birmingham, MI Walter Bratic, CPA; Damages (Trade Secrets); Houston, TX
Defendant: Alan Ratliffe; Damages (Trade Secrets); Houston, TX B. Michael Aucoin, D. Engr., P.E., P.M.P; Electrical; College Station, TX William Thue; Electrical; Hendersonville, NC
ATTORNEYS:
Plaintiff: Brett C. Govett; Fulbright & Jaworski; Dallas, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); Robert S. Harrell; Fulbright & Jaworski; Houston, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); Barclay R. Nicholson; Fulbright & Jaworski; Houston, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); Otis W. Carroll; Ireland, Carroll & Kelley; Tyler, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); Franklin W. Jones; Jones & Jones, Inc.; Marshall, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); Jon C. Rice; Fulbright & Jaworski; Houston, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); C. Erik Hawes; Morgan, Lewis & Bockios; Houston, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.); James L. Beebe; Houston, TX (Cooper Technologies Inc.)
Defendant: Sam F. Baxter; McKool Smith; Dallas, TX (Thomas & Betts Corp., Thomas & Betts Corp.); Alan M. Fisch; Kaye Scholer LLP; Washington, DC (Thomas & Betts Corp.); Coke Morgan Stewart; Kaye Scholer LLP; Washington, DC (Thomas & Betts Corp.); Jason F. Hoffman; Kaye Scholer LLP; Washington, DC (Thomas & Betts Corp.); R. William Sigler; Kaye Scholer LLP; Washington, DC (Thomas & Betts Corp.); Kevin W. Jakel; Kaye Scholer LLP; Washington, DC (Thomas & Betts Corp.); Lisa B. Katz; Kaye Scholer LLP; Washington, DC (Thomas & Betts Corp.)
JUDGE: Charles Everingham
RANGE AMOUNT: 0
STATE: Texas
COUNTY: Not Applicable
INJURIES: Cooper claimed Thomas & Betts willfully infringed on its patents. It claimed $14 million as a royalty on Thomas & Betts sales of the allegedly infringing products. It sought that amount in punitive damages, treble damages, and an injunction barring Thomas & Betts from selling the products in dispute.
