Carrier Corporation v. Goodman Global Inc. et al., C.A. No. 12-930 - SLR, February 22, 2016
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction is moot. Defendants’ post-trial motions are granted in part and denied in part.
The disputed technology relates to self-configuring controls for HVAC systems. The jury found the patent-in-suit to be valid and infringed. The court granted defendants motion for a new trial as to indirect infringement because plaintiff’s counsel exploited the evidence of a standard purchase order indemnification clause, arguing defendant knew of infringement but put the responsibility on a non-party who built the central control for the accused products. A new trial is also warranted due to plaintiff’s closing arguments relating to copying. Defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s expert testified outside the scope of his report is not a basis for a new trial. Defendants’ motion for a retrial on obvious is granted. Both parties bear the cost of a retrial.
