Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

In 2009 the Arlington Industries sued Bridgeport fittings for patent infringement in connection with the manufacture and design of certain electrical conduit fittings. To prove damages the plaintiff presented a CPA and fraud examiner with over 30 years investigative accounting experience. Case Overview

background The claim construction issue in this appeal involved the term “spring metal adaptor,” a key component in the invention: a new fitting for an electrical junction box. Prior to the invention of paten No. 5,266,050, held by Arlington, most junction box connectors used a threaded nut that was screwed into junction box – a tricky operation. The ‘050 patent Solved this problem by using a fitting with a spring metal adaptor (20) containing two types of outward pointing tangs (22/23). The new fitting could simply be snapped into place rather than needing to be screwed.

The Arguments Arlington Industries’ Arguments: The expert assumed Bridgeport fittings conducted patent infringement and was liable for all the damages caused by this infringement. The expert calculated damages in part by reference to the four-part test in the landmark Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, 575 F.2d Bridgeport Fittings’ Arguments: Prior to the trial Bridgeport challenged Arlington’s expert under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert, claiming that the expert: 1)missaplied the legal standard; 2) was an accountant instead of a technical expert; 3) failed to supply a proper foundation for his report.

Court Decision The court addressed each contention of Bridgeport in turn. 1) Correct legal standard. One prong of the panduit test requires that a patentee prove an absence of acceptable, available non- infringing substitutes during the infringement period. 2)Sufficient experience. Similarly the court found the expert’s accounting background more than adequate. Although a financial expert must possess specialized expertise to provide opinion testimony, Rule 702’s requirements are liberal and the expert was sufficiently qualified. 3) Proper foundation. The defendant claimed that the expert improperly relied on information obtained from third parties and the plaintiff concerning certain types of electrical connectors. Under Rule 703, however, such reliance is entirely appropriate if it is of the type “reasonably relied on by damages experts in patent liability suits”, the court held.

Court Decision “ This is the purview of cross-examination”, the court declared, and it denied the defendant’s Daubert motion.

learning Understanding the Law Can Boost Expert’s Credibility

The court proceedings can be found here: courts/pennsylvania/pamdce/3:2001cv00485/17884/584/0.pdf?

About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.