§Why CasetextPricing

Energy Transportation Group Inc. v. Sonic Innovations Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Costs Plaintiff Energy Transportation Group, Inc.'s Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest

21 Cited authorities

  1. Lum v. Bank of Am.

    361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 2,103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "mak[ing] general claims that defendants misrepresented that the prime rate is the lowest rate charged to their most creditworthy customers" does not satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard because "they do not indicate the date, time, or place of the alleged misrepresentations, the financial transactions in connection with which these misrepresentations were made, or who made the misrepresentation to whom"

  2. General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.

    461 U.S. 648 (1983)   Cited 527 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that some circumstances, such as a patentee's undue delay in prosecuting the lawsuit, may justify limiting or withholding prejudgment interest but noting that "prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award"

  3. Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours

    372 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 223 times
    Holding an issue is waived unless a party raises it in its opening brief and "for those purposes a passing reference to an issue will not suffice to bring that issue before this court"

  4. Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp.

    718 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 208 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patent owner may satisfy his initial burden by inference in a two-supplier market

  5. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.

    939 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 121 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in choosing prime rate compounded daily where plaintiff was forced to take out loans above prime rate during litigation

  6. Bio-Rad Lab. v. Nicolet Instrument Corp.

    807 F.2d 964 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 118 times
    Holding that a complaint filed one year after the first instance of infringement did not represent undue delay

  7. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, v. Dart Indus

    862 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that a patentee does not have to make "an affirmative demonstration, i.e., proof of borrowing at or above prime,...to be entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the prime rate"

  8. Brown v. Petrolite Corp.

    965 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 62 times
    Holding plain language of the statute authorizes post-judgment interest on punitive damages, which are a part of the "money judgment"

  9. IMX, Inc. v. LendingTree, LLC

    469 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Del. 2007)   Cited 33 times
    Finding that attorneys' fees were not warranted because "defendant's infringement of the '947 patent was a 'close' question, and defendant's trial tactics did not rise to the level of bad faith or vexatious litigation"

  10. Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc.

    926 F.2d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 45 times
    In Kaufman, for instance, the patent owner and the infringer sold substantially the same product. Kaufman, 926 F.2d at 1143.

  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,715 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

  12. Section 1961 - Interest

    28 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 11,503 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 6621 applies to internal revenue tax cases

  13. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,082 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"