green
Positive treatment
Under Fire
Quoted verbatim 5×
64.1 score
“the setting of a reasonable royalty after infringement cannot be treated . . . as the equivalent of ordinary royalty negotiations among truly 'willing' patent owners and licensees.”
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence
Smith & Nephew Incorporated v. Arthrex, Incorporated
(2015)
“Under Panduit, “[t]o obtain as damages the profits on sales he would have made absent ... infringement, ... a patent owner must prove: (1) demand for the patented product, (2) absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes, (3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and (4) the amount of the profit he would have made.” Id.”
Dissent
Wechsler v. MacKe International Trade, Inc.
(2007)
“Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1162 (6th Cir.1978)).”
Dissent
King Instruments Corporation v. Luciano Perego and Tapematic, Defendant/cross-Appellants
(1995)
“Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1157-60 (6th Cir.1978), as well as for patentees who do not exploit the market for the patented goods.”
Dissent
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co.
(1995)
“Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 , 197 USPQ 726, 730 (6th Cir.1978) (Patentee manufacturer must prove lost profits by showing: “1) demand for the patented product, 2) absence of acceptable nonin-fringing substitutes, 3) his manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand [for the patented product], and 4) the amount of profits he would have made.”)- 15 Seventh Circuit: Union…”
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Ltd. (Macao Commercial Offshore)
deter- mination of a 'reasonable royalty' after infringement . . . rests on a legal fiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wherevertv, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the setting of a reasonable royalty after infringement cannot be treated . . . as the equivalent of ordinary royalty negotiations among truly 'willing' patent owners and licensees.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corp.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a product lacking the advantages of that patented can hardly be termed a substitute 'acceptable' to the customer who wants those advantages.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Crystal Semiconductor Corporation v. Tritech Microelectronics International
the right to damages caused by price reduction stands on the same ground as that to damages caused by lost sales.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
product lacking the advantages of that patented can hardly be termed a substitute 'acceptable' to the customer who wants those advantages
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Choon’s Design LLC v. Aysum Life et al.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Inventist Inc. v. Ninebot Inc. (Usa)
J.A. 151–54 (citing Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)). 3 The district court denied Ninebot’s mo- tion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. v. Anthony Mack
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1159 (6th Cir. 1978); accord Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1180 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kawasaki Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Rorze Corporation
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
(3×)
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978) to demonstrate causation.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
10X Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc.
Cir. 2017) (quoting Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)). 7 A reagent is defined as “[a] substance used to carry out a laboratory test.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crystal Lagoons US Corp v. Cloward H2O
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978). related to the second and fourth Panduit elements are unreliable, rendering his lost profits opinion inadmissible.156 Regarding the fourth element, Pacific takes issue with Bero’s assumption that Crystal Lagoons’ profit would have been the offered by Crystal Lagoons to Hard Rock in an unsigned letter of intent.157 The primary bases for Bero’s lost profits opinion are an unsigned letter of intent between Hard Rock and Crystal Lagoons for ,158 the fact that the offer was “in line with” two other projects,159 and an unpreserved (an…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Silverthorne v. Sterling Seismic
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1159 (6th Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Godinger Silver Art LTD. v. Shenzen Tangson Houseware Co., Ltd..
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lexmark International Inc. v. Universal Imaging Industries, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1164 (6th Cir. 1978); Mentor Graphics Corp., 851 F.3d at 1285 (listing the Panduit factors as: “(1) demand for the patented product; (2) absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives; (3) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and (4) the amount of profit it would have made”). 2 See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Playwood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lexmark International Inc. v. Universal Imaging Industries, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1164 (6th Cir. 1978); Mentor Graphics Corp., 851 F.3d at 1285 (listing the Panduit factors as: “(1) demand for the patented product; (2) absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives; (3) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and (4) the amount of profit it would have made”). causation or properly apportion damages under Federal Circuit precedent, UII may reassert its position on a motion for judgment as a matter of law or directed verdict.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trutek Corp. v. BlueWillow Biologics, Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
VARTA Microbattery GmbH v. Audio Partnership LLC
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978); Metzdorff Damages Report (Appendix B – Panduit Factors) at ¶¶ 1–20 (Demand for the patented product), ¶¶ 21–38 (Absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes), ¶¶ 39–47 (Manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit demand) ¶¶ 48–59 (Amount of profit that would have been earned).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fleet Engineers, Inc. v. Mudguard Technologies, LLC
Fibre Case: 22-2001 Document: 37 Page: 16 Filed: 08/15/2023 16 FLEET ENGINEERS, INC. v. MUDGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fleet Engineers, Inc. v. Mudguard Technologies, LLC
Fibre Case: 22-2001 Document: 37 Page: 16 Filed: 08/15/2023 16 FLEET ENGINEERS, INC. v. MUDGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
OrthoPediatrics Corp. v. Wishbone Medical, Inc.
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978); and lost profits damages based on market share as considered in Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 352 F.3d 1369 , 1376– 1378 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Molnlycke Health Care US, LLC v. Greenwood Marketing, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Chamberlain Group LLC v. Overhead Door Corporation
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).) Relevant to the second Panduit factor, Defendants contend that their damages expert, Mr. Tate, “testified that Overhead Door documentary evidence shows that the majority of customers do not use WiFi features—i.e., the features that include the accused functionalities.” (Dkt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PureWick Corporation v. Sage Products, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 2017) (quoting Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)). “[U]nder the two- supplier test, a patentee must show: 1) the relevant market contains only two suppliers, 2) its own manufacturing and marketing capability to make the sales that were diverted to the infringer, and 3) the amount of profit it would have made from these diverted sales.” Micro Chem, 318 F.3d at 1124 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Inventist, Inc. v. Ninebot, Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978); 3 BLC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int’l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1217 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)) (alterations in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ArcherDX, LLC v. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 2017) (quoting Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CellTrust Corporation v. ionLake, LLC
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
FCX Solar, LLC v. FTC Solar, Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1159 (6th Cir. 1978) (discussing relevant factors examined in determining a reasonable royalty).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Talavera Hair Products, Inc. v. Taizhou Yunsung Electrical Appliance Co., LTD.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).” Viasat, Inc. v. Space 7 Sys./Loral, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00260-MLH-WVG, 2014 WL 3896073 , at *11 (S.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sunoco Partners Marketing v. U.S. Venture, Inc.
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sunoco Partners Marketing v. U.S. Venture, Inc.
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Basf Plant Science, Lp v. Commonwealth Scientific
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1163 (6th Case: 20-1415 Document: 62 Page: 47 Filed: 03/15/2022 BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC 47 Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Basf Plant Science, Lp v. Commonwealth Scientific
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1163 (6th Case: 20-1415 Document: 62 Page: 47 Filed: 03/15/2022 BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC 47 Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. v. E-One, Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1162 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Automatic Equipment Manufacturing Company v. Danko Manufacturing, LLC
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1157 (6th Cir. 1978)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Xodus Medical Inc v. Prime Medical LLC
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Products, LLC
To determine whether “but for” causation is present, the Federal Circuit often applies the four-part test set forth in Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978); see, e.g., Kearns, 32 F.3d at 1551.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc.
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ICM Controls Corp. v. Honeywell International, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978) (claimant must prove the absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes in order to demonstrate entitlement to lost profits)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Summit Industrial Supply, LLC v. Triple Crown Consulting, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Floodbreak, LLC v. Art Metal Industries, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Laboratories, LLC
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978). infer that [plaintiff] could have sold its market share of [defendant’s] infringing sales wherever the opportunity occurred.” Id.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Floodbreak, LLC v. Art Metal Industries, LLC
(2×)
Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Biofrontera Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978), is “[o]ne ‘useful, but non-exclusive’ method to establish the patentee’s entitlement to lost profits.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1284 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Biofrontera Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978), is “[o]ne ‘useful, but non-exclusive’ method to establish the patentee’s entitlement to lost profits.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1284 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Biofrontera Inc.
Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978), is “[o]ne ‘useful, but non-exclusive’ method to establish the patentee’s entitlement to lost profits.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1284 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Sylvester Tate, United States of America v. William Tate, A/K/A William Raymond King
v.
Sylvester Tate, United States of America v. William Tate, A/K/A William Raymond King
77-5301.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 23, 1978.
575 F.2d 1152
Published
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Sylvester TATE, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William TATE, a/k/a William Raymond King, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 77-5301, 77-5302.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued April 12, 1978.
Decided and Filed May 23, 1978.
Timothy J. Potts, Summers, Potts & Burke, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellant in No. 77-5301.
Donald N. Krosin, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant in No. 77-5302.
William D. Beyer, U. S. Atty., Solomon Oliver, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1
This is an appeal from jury convictions for armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)(d) and 2 (1976).
2
The proofs at trial showed that both defendants were arrested in an automobile rented by William Tate, in which automobile was found a shopping bag with some of the loot from the bank, including bait bills. The arrest had been made as a result of an eyewitness to the robbery who identified Sylvester Tate as the bank robber and also took down the license number of the rented car. These, plus other proofs, were more than sufficient to sustain the jury verdict of guilty as to both appellants, and we find no reversible error in the trial proceedings or the judge's charge.
3
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.