Legal Opinion
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided November 18, 2009No. 98 C 2361PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES B. ZAGEL, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Jury awarded Plaintiff Jacob Krippelz $23 million in royalties to compensate him for Defendant Ford’s infringement of Krippelz’s puddle lamp patent. Krippelz now moves for prejudgment interest and costs, as well as enhanced damages. For the following reasons, Krippelz’s motions are granted in large part.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Prejudgment Interest and Costs
The Supreme Court has held that under 35 U.S.C. § 284, “prejudgment interest should ordinarily be awarded” when a plaintiff in a patent infringement suit prevails on his…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- The Read Corporation and F.T. Read & Sons, Inc. v. Portec, Inc., D/B/A Portec/kolberg DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Gorenstein Enterprises, Inc., Sam Gorenstein, and David Gorenstein v. Quality Care-Usa, Inc. And David A. ScheinmanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2017
- Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass North America, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2010
- Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2010
- Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2010
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.