Case Title: AccuWeb, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner

Citation: 2008 WI 24

Docket Number: 2005AP003190

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 24 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP3190 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
AccuWeb, Inc., 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
Raymond Buisker, 
          Plaintiff, 
     v. 
Foley & Lardner, Harry C. Engstrom, Quarles & 
Brady LLP and Nicholas Seay, 
          Defendants-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: 299 Wis. 2d 782, 728 N.W.2d 373 
(Ct. App. 2007-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 28, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 12, 2007   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
John C. Albert   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by 
Daniel W. Hildebrand, Jon P. Axelrod, Joseph R. Ranney, Dawn E. 
Hildebrand, and DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Madison, and oral 
argument by Jon P. Axelrod. 
 
For the defendants-respondents, Foley & Lardner and Harry 
C. Engstrom, there was a brief by Claude J. Covelli and Boardman 
Suhr Curry & Field LLP, and oral argument by Claude J. Covelli. 
 
For the defendants-respondents, Quarles & Brady LLP and 
Nicholas Seay, there was a brief by William F. Bauer, Elizabeth 
M. Johnson, and Coyne, Schultz, Becker & Bauer SC, Madison, and 
Michael A. Pope, Matthew E. Leno, and McDermott Will & Emery 
LLP, Chicago, Ill., and oral argument by William F. Bauer. 
 
 
 
2008 WI 24
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP3190 
(L.C. No. 
2003CV389) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
AccuWeb, Inc., 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
Raymond Buisker, 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
v. 
 
Foley & Lardner, Harry C. Engstrom, 
Quarles & Brady LLP and Nicholas Seay, 
 
 
Defendants-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 28, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
remanded. 
 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.   This is a review of an 
unpublished decision of the court of appeals,1 affirming a 
summary judgment order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, 
Judge John C. Albert. 
                                                 
1 AccuWeb, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner, No. 2005AP3190, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2007). 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
2 
 
¶2 
Petitioner, AccuWeb, Inc. (AccuWeb), seeks review of a 
decision of the court of appeals that affirmed the summary 
judgment order entered against it in this negligence and legal 
malpractice action.  Respondents are Foley & Lardner (Foley), 
Harry C. Engstrom (Engstrom), Quarles & Brady LLP (Quarles), and 
Nicholas Seay (Seay).  This case centers on whether AccuWeb, at 
the summary judgment stage, put forth sufficient evidence to 
raise a genuine issue of material fact on the question of 
whether the alleged failure of the Respondents to prevent the 
premature expiration of AccuWeb's 5,072,414 patent (the 414 
patent) was a substantial factor in causing AccuWeb actionable 
damages, thus preventing summary judgment.  The second issue is 
whether AccuWeb presented sufficient evidence to allow a fair 
and reasonable estimate of the amount of such damages, so that 
there was a genuine issue of material fact, thus preventing 
summary judgment as to the amount of those damages.  We address 
the second issue because it was addressed by the circuit court.  
This case involves the interpretation and application of Wis. 
Stat. § 802.08 (2003-04),2 the Wisconsin summary judgment 
statute. 
¶3 
Given the standard of review on summary judgment 
motions, we hold that AccuWeb demonstrated that there were 
genuine issues of material fact that were sufficient to preclude 
the granting of a motion for summary judgment against it on the 
                                                 
2 All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
3 
 
issues of whether there was evidence of damages resulting from 
the loss of its 414 patent, and on the amount of those damages.  
Based on the record before us, we are satisfied that AccuWeb 
could present evidence sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to 
award damages to the company in an amount that is supported by 
the evidence.  We, therefore, reverse the decision of the court 
of appeals, because we hold that there were genuine issues of 
material fact that precluded summary judgment against AccuWeb. 
I 
¶4 
AccuWeb, a manufacturer of web guide control systems, 
sued the Respondents alleging that they were negligent and had 
committed malpractice for permitting the 414 patent to lapse.  
The 414 patent covered a technique, called a "compensated 
detection system" or "Ultrasonic Web Edge Detection Method and 
Apparatus," that helps to maintain web guide points.  It does so 
by detecting and eliminating the vulnerability of sensors to 
errors caused by environmental variables, such as humidity and 
ambient temperature, by automatically compensating for the 
changes caused by such variables. 
¶5 
Through its president, Raymond Buisker (Buisker), 
AccuWeb retained Engstrom as its patent attorney in 1989.  
Shortly thereafter, Engstrom notified AccuWeb that he had a 
conflict of interest on the 414 patent.  As a result, AccuWeb 
retained Seay, a Quarles attorney, to complete the work on the 
414 patent's application.  However, Engstrom continued to be 
AccuWeb's patent attorney on other matters. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
4 
 
¶6 
In 1991, the 414 patent was issued.  AccuWeb had to 
pay a maintenance fee to prevent the patent from expiring.  The 
fee was due by June 10, 1995 (a grace period extended this date 
until December 10, 1995).  Along with another patent not in 
issue here (the 573 patent), the 414 patent expired when the 
maintenance fee was not paid on time.3  If the 414 patent had not 
lapsed, it would have expired naturally in 2009.4 
¶7 
In June 1999, when the next maintenance fee would have 
been due on the 414 patent had the patent not prematurely lapsed 
in 1995, AccuWeb received a letter from a Quarles paralegal 
notifying Buisker of the maintenance fee deadline.  This letter 
caused AccuWeb to inquire whether the 1995 maintenance fee had 
been paid or if the patent had, instead, expired.  After 
Engstrom confirmed that the fee had not been paid and that the 
patent had expired, AccuWeb and Buisker sued the Respondents for 
legal malpractice and breach of contract.  They claimed that the 
patent lapsed prematurely because the Respondents failed to 
remind AccuWeb of its responsibility to remit the required 
patent maintenance fees in a timely manner.  AccuWeb claimed 
that the Respondents were negligent, thus causing the 414 patent 
to lapse. 
                                                 
3 AccuWeb hired other attorneys to pursue the reinstatement 
of both patents, but only the 573 patent was reinstated.  The 
573 patent supplemented the 414 patent. 
4 None of the parties dispute that the patent would have 
naturally expired 20 years after its application filing date of 
July 31, 1989, on July 31, 2009. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
5 
 
¶8 
AccuWeb claimed that such negligence caused the 
company damages in many ways.  First, AccuWeb contends that the 
patent's lapse was a major reason that the prospective sale of 
the company to FiTech fell through at the price originally 
offered.  On July 30, 1998, FiTech submitted a letter of intent 
to buy AccuWeb for $9 million in addition to the assumption of 
AccuWeb's accounts payable.  However, as part of FiTech's offer, 
FiTech allowed AccuWeb to retain its cash and its accounts 
receivable.  As a result, the proposed sale would have provided 
AccuWeb with a net benefit of approximately $12.2 million.  
However, after the due diligence period expired, FiTech withdrew 
its initial offer.  The only reason that FiTech gave to AccuWeb 
for withdrawing its initial offer was that it was due to 
"economic" conditions, even though AccuWeb allegedly was having 
a record year.  FiTech then discussed an offer to purchase 
AccuWeb for $5.5 million, which AccuWeb rejected.  AccuWeb 
received only the $85,000 of FiTech's deposit that it forfeited 
when the deal collapsed.  AccuWeb conceded that no one from 
FiTech mentioned the lapse of the relevant patent when FiTech 
withdrew its original offer. 
¶9 
During this litigation, Buisker testified he did not 
believe that the offered reason was the true reason that FiTech 
lowered its offer, and he stated that he now believes that the 
true reason was that FiTech discovered the lapsed patent.  
AccuWeb's executives, Buisker and his son, Brian, stated that 
FiTech had access to public records during the due diligence 
process that showed that the 414 patent had expired.  These 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
6 
 
AccuWeb executives also stated that FiTech discussed AccuWeb's 
patents during negotiations.  While admitting that AccuWeb had 
not responded to the many letters it had received from parties 
interested in buying the company, in his deposition, Buisker 
also testified that AccuWeb had decided not to pursue additional 
potential sales opportunities partially because it did not wish 
to disclose that the 414 patent was no longer protected. 
¶10 AccuWeb also asserted that it lost a valuable right in 
regard to 
the fair market value of the patent itself.  
Furthermore, AccuWeb claimed that its future resale value has 
been diminished.  AccuWeb did not, however, make a specific 
claim for lost profits. 
¶11 Foley and Engstrom denied having any obligation at all 
to send AccuWeb a notice in regard to the deadline for the 
payment of the maintenance fee.  Quarles and Seay denied having 
a duty to send such a notice because they claimed that AccuWeb 
terminated their attorney-client relationship before the fee was 
due.5  All of the Respondents denied liability and also denied 
that AccuWeb had suffered any damages as a result of the 
Respondents' alleged negligence. 
¶12 All of the Respondents moved for partial summary 
judgment, both on Buisker's personal claim and on AccuWeb's 
diminished business valuation claim.  Foley further moved to 
dismiss AccuWeb's economic loss claim. 
                                                 
5 However, according to AccuWeb, Seay was the attorney of 
record with the patent office through 1999 which would have been 
four years after the fee was due. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
7 
 
¶13 Finding that Buisker lacked standing to sue because he 
had assigned both patents to AccuWeb, the circuit court 
dismissed his personal claims.  The circuit court also dismissed 
AccuWeb's 
claim 
of 
diminished 
business 
valuation 
on 
the 
rationale that AccuWeb did not provide sufficient evidence to 
show genuine issues of material fact that the alleged negligence 
caused AccuWeb damages, and because the company failed to show 
that it could establish its alleged damages to a reasonable 
degree of certainty.  Specifically, the circuit court held that 
AccuWeb had not sufficiently established that the patent's lapse 
was a substantial factor in its inability to sell the company to 
FiTech.  The circuit court deemed AccuWeb's assertions on 
FiTech's motive for withdrawing from the purchase of AccuWeb as 
being "speculative" and "simply insufficient" to prove that the 
negligence alleged had been a substantial factor in the purchase 
falling through.  The circuit court also held that Buisker's 
beliefs on FiTech's motive for withdrawing its first offer were 
not sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material 
fact on AccuWeb's damages claims.  The circuit court concluded 
that AccuWeb was "unable to present evidence of diminished 
business valuation damages to a 'reasonable certainty' or 
evidence sufficient to enable a jury to make a fair and 
reasonable estimate of such damages." 
¶14 AccuWeb filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 
circuit court denied.  The circuit court did so because no one 
was attempting to use the expired patent and, as a result, there 
was no economic loss and no loss in business valuation.  The 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
8 
 
parties then signed a stipulation and release agreement wherein 
AccuWeb released all claims against the Respondents, except for 
the diminution in business valuation claim.  On November 23, 
2005, the circuit court entered a final judgment that dismissed 
the case. 
¶15 AccuWeb appealed the circuit court's decision.  A 
divided court of appeals affirmed the circuit court.6  AccuWeb 
filed a petition for review of the court of appeals' decision, 
which we granted. 
II 
¶16 We review a circuit court's grant or denial of summary 
judgment de novo and independently of either the circuit court 
or the court of appeals; however, we apply the same methodology 
and benefit from their analyses.  AKG Real Estate, LLC v. 
Kosterman, 2006 WI 106, ¶14, 296 Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 835.  We 
must determine whether the complaint states an actionable claim.  
Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315-17, 401 
N.W.2d 816 (1987).  Summary judgment is only appropriate if 
there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving 
party, having established a prima facie case, is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.  Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2).  Summary 
judgment materials, including pleadings, depositions, answers to 
interrogatories, and admissions on file are viewed in the light 
most favorable to the nonmoving party.  Rainbow Country Rentals 
                                                 
6 Judges Paul B. Higginbotham and David G. Deininger were in 
the majority, and Judge Charles P. Dykman dissented. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
9 
 
v. Ameritech Publ’g, 2005 WI 153, ¶13, 286 Wis. 2d 170, 706 
N.W.2d 95. 
III 
¶17 The first issue on review is whether there was 
sufficient evidence of actionable damages, caused by the alleged 
failure of the Respondents to prevent the company's premature 
loss of its 414 patent, to raise a genuine issue of material 
fact and, thus, to prevent summary judgment.  The second issue 
is whether AccuWeb presented sufficient evidence to allow a fair 
and reasonable estimate of the amount of such damages, so that 
there was a genuine issue of material fact, thus preventing 
summary judgment as to the amount of those damages.  We address 
the second issue because it was addressed by the circuit court. 
¶18  On review, AccuWeb claims that there are genuine 
issues of material fact on damages that preclude summary 
judgment.  AccuWeb argues that there was sufficient evidence in 
the record upon which a jury could have concluded that its 
exclusivity and competitive advantage in the web guide industry, 
which was conferred by the 414 patent, was a valuable right to 
the company and also a source of its success.  AccuWeb further 
argues that the jury was entitled to make a decision on whether 
the patent made AccuWeb a more valuable company to prospective 
purchasers.  AccuWeb also claims that it showed that it could 
establish damages to a reasonable degree of certainty through 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
10 
 
the Mesirow Report,7 which concerned the diminution in value that 
AccuWeb alleges resulted from the loss of its 414 patent.  
AccuWeb argues that, even though criticism of the Mesirow Report 
may be appropriate for cross-examination and for argument to a 
jury, such criticisms go only to the weight of the evidence 
presented, and do not justify summary judgment.  AccuWeb asks 
this court to reverse the court of appeals' decision and to 
remand the case to the circuit court for a jury trial on the 
issues of liability and damages. 
¶19  The Respondents argue that, because AccuWeb admitted 
it had no evidence that it had experienced, or likely would 
experience, any loss of sales, revenues, or profits because of 
the 414 patent's expiration, AccuWeb could not prove damages to 
a reasonable degree of certainty.8  They claim that the Mesirow 
                                                 
7 The Mesirow Report was a valuation appraisal of AccuWeb as 
of November 15, 2002, that AccuWeb paid Mesirow Financial, 
through its employee, Jay Goldfarb, to prepare.  The report was 
intended to quantify the amount of damage that AccuWeb had 
incurred as a result of prematurely losing the 414 patent.  The 
report was 26 pages long.  In addition, it included an appendix 
with six schedules to support its conclusions. 
8 The phrase "reasonable certainty" refers to a component of 
the ordinary burden of proof that a plaintiff must carry at 
trial when proving facts to the jury.  As Wis JI——Civil 1700 
states: 
In considering the amount to be inserted by you in 
answer to each damage question, the burden of proof 
rests upon each [party] claiming damages to satisfy 
you by the greater weight of the credible evidence, to 
a reasonable certainty, that the [party] sustained 
damages with respect to the element or elements 
mentioned in the question and the amount of the 
damages.  . . .  "Reasonable certainty" means that you 
are persuaded based upon a rational consideration of 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
11 
 
Report's damage calculations were based on assumptions, not 
opinions, and also claim that even the report's author, Jay 
Goldfarb (Goldfarb), admitted at his deposition that the damage 
case assumptions in the report were not completely accurate.  As 
a result, they argue that the report is fatally flawed because 
it identified a hypothetical loss that was never realized by 
AccuWeb.  Accordingly, if the report was used as a basis for 
calculating damages, it would result in AccuWeb receiving the 
same recovery more than once.  Consequently, they argue that the 
circuit court and the court of appeals did not err in rejecting 
the conclusions in the Mesirow Report because, under Wisconsin 
law, the potential for an injury is not sufficient to support a 
claim by a plaintiff for damages.  Furthermore, because AccuWeb 
did not present sufficient evidence of the fact and extent of 
the injury it alleged, the Respondents argue that summary 
judgment was appropriate on AccuWeb's legal malpractice claim.  
See Lewandowski v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 88 Wis. 2d 271, 277, 276 
N.W.2d 284 (1979) (holding that, in an attorney malpractice 
case, the client, here AccuWeb, has the burden of proving both 
                                                                                                                                                             
the evidence.  Absolute certainty is not required, but 
a guess is not enough to meet the burden of proof. 
To establish the amount of those damages with enough certainty 
to present a genuine issue of material fact to prevent summary 
judgment, AccuWeb need only show that a reasonable jury could 
award the company damages in an amount that is supported by the 
evidence.  See Schmidt v. N. States Power Co., 2007 WI 136, ¶24, 
___ Wis. 2d ___, 742 N.W.2d 294 (citation omitted) ("A factual 
issue is 'genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable 
jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.") 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
12 
 
the fact and the extent of the alleged injury).  They also argue 
that a patent has no "inherent value" that would entitle the 
holder of the patent to recover monetary damages, and that 
injury to one's legal rights is not necessarily tantamount to an 
actual monetary injury.  Furthermore, the Respondents assert 
that AccuWeb's loss of business value upon sale argument ignores 
the undisputed fact that AccuWeb is not for sale, rendering this 
theory of damages untenable as a matter of law.  The Respondents 
argue that the dismissal of AccuWeb's claims was proper and that 
the court of appeals' decision should be affirmed because 
AccuWeb failed to prove that the 414 patent's loss caused any 
monetary loss in the value of its business. 
¶20  For the reasons discussed in detail below, we are 
satisfied that there were genuine issues of material fact that 
precluded the granting of the summary judgment motion against 
AccuWeb.  Our holding focuses on three main areas where AccuWeb 
presented sufficient evidence on damages to avoid the granting 
of 
summary 
judgment 
against 
it. 
 
First, 
AccuWeb 
showed 
diminution of business valuation problems upon any attempt to 
sell its business.  Second, AccuWeb clearly demonstrated a loss 
of its ability to license or assign the rights to use the 
invention formerly protected by the 414 patent.  Third, AccuWeb 
presented enough information to establish reasonable competing 
inferences on the reason for FiTech's substantial reduction in 
the amount of its offer to purchase AccuWeb, which was a 
reduction from approximately $12.2 million to $5.5 million. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
13 
 
¶21 As 
we 
noted 
previously, 
summary 
judgment 
is 
appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material 
fact, and the moving party, having established a prima facie 
case, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Wis. Stat.   
§ 802.08(2).  Furthermore, summary judgment materials, including 
pleadings, 
depositions, 
answers 
to 
interrogatories, 
and 
admissions on file are viewed in the light most favorable to the 
nonmoving party.  Rainbow Country Rentals, 286 Wis. 2d 170, ¶13.  
Also, the "burden is on the moving party to prove that there are 
no genuine issues of material fact."  Central Corp. v. Research 
Prods. Corp., 2004 WI 76, ¶19, 272 Wis. 2d 561, 681 N.W.2d 178.  
We are convinced that the Respondents did not establish that 
there were no genuine issues of material fact when AccuWeb's 
submissions are viewed in the light most favorable to AccuWeb.  
Given the facts of this case, we are convinced that AccuWeb 
showed sufficient evidence of actionable damages to avoid 
summary judgment.  From the record presented, we are satisfied 
that AccuWeb could present sufficient evidence to enable a 
reasonable jury to award damages to the company in an amount 
that is supported by the evidence.  We explain our rationale in 
further detail in the following paragraphs. 
¶22  One reason for our holding is that the loss of the 
414 patent created a risk to AccuWeb's business, one that 
allegedly resulted in a diminution in the value of AccuWeb's 
business.  The Mesirow Report detailed the connection between 
the loss of the 414 patent, the risk that competitors would 
learn of its expiration and, thus, be able to use the technology 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
14 
 
previously protected by the patent, and the lowering of the 
value of AccuWeb.9  This court has recognized such diminution in 
a business' value as being credible evidence that could support 
a jury's damage verdict.  See Jolin v. Oster, 55 Wis. 2d 199, 
220-21, 198 N.W.2d 639 (1972) (holding that a jury was entitled 
to believe a party's testimony about the decline in the value of 
the party's business).  Furthermore, we have stated that attacks 
on such valuation calculations were "a question for the jury."  
Id. at 221.  Summary judgment against AccuWeb should not have 
been granted given the content of the Mesirow Report. 
¶23  AccuWeb claims that the 414 patent enabled it to 
substantially 
increase 
the 
company's 
sales 
in 
the 
years 
following its invention.  AccuWeb also asserts that it placed a 
premium price on its products that utilized the technology 
covered by the 414 patent.  AccuWeb further claims that it 
earned a large share of its profits from the products that 
incorporated the technology of the 414 patent.  Finally, AccuWeb 
asserts that its products incorporating the 414 patent's 
technology played a significant role in producing sales of other 
AccuWeb products. 
                                                 
9 The Mesirow Report stated that, if the 414 patent had not 
lapsed, AccuWeb's value on November 15, 2002, would have been 
between $6.4 and $10.3 million.  The Mesirow Report further 
stated that AccuWeb's value on that same day, given the 414 
patent's lapse, was between $1.7 and $3.0 million.  If a jury 
found the Mesirow Report to be credible, the jury could use such 
figures to estimate, to a reasonable degree of certainty, the 
amount that AccuWeb's value diminished as a result of losing the 
414 patent. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
15 
 
¶24  Given the 414 patent's alleged profit-potential, it 
was a serious risk to AccuWeb that the 414 patent could have 
been used by a competitor.  Such use, which was a possibility 
after the loss of the 414 patent, would almost certainly 
decrease AccuWeb's value upon any potential sale of the company.  
It 
would 
make 
the 
company 
less 
attractive 
to 
potential 
purchasers.  Furthermore, AccuWeb's executives, Buisker and his 
son, Brian, testified that, after they discovered the lapse of 
the patent, they decided not to pursue selling the company to 
outside purchasers because they did not want to disclose the 
patent's expiration to potential purchasers.10 
¶25  Both Buisker and his son, Brian, asserted that the 
exclusive right to use the 414 patent's technology had made 
AccuWeb a valuable company to prospective purchasers.  The risk 
factor discussed herein clearly had the potential of lowering 
the value of AccuWeb in any sale situation, as was demonstrated 
by the Mesirow Report.  Given the details of the Mesirow Report, 
we are satisfied that AccuWeb need not have shown actual 
infringement of the technology covered by the patent to survive 
summary judgment.  While this area of law is not replete with 
published case law, an unpublished federal court case held that 
a plaintiff was not required to plead in a complaint specific 
acts of infringement to survive a motion to dismiss.  Beasley v. 
                                                 
10 We note, however, that AccuWeb's attorneys mentioned in 
their brief that, "[a]fter the FiTech matter, AccuWeb entered 
into discussions with BST."  It is not clear from the record 
whether BST or AccuWeb initiated such purchase discussions. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
16 
 
Avery Dennison Corp., No. SA04CA886FB, 2006 WL 925069, at *4 
(W.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2006). 
¶26 Notwithstanding the claimed defects and shortcomings 
of both the Mesirow Report and Goldfarb's expert testimony,11 we 
are satisfied that the Mesirow Report developed genuine issues 
of material fact sufficient for AccuWeb to survive summary 
judgment.  This is especially true because summary judgment 
materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the 
nonmoving party, here AccuWeb, Rainbow Country Rentals, 286 Wis. 
2d 170, ¶13, and the proponents, here the Respondents, bear the 
burden of proving "that there are no genuine issues of material 
fact."  Central Corp., 272 Wis. 2d 561, ¶19.  The claimed 
defects and shortcomings of the Mesirow Report and of its author 
                                                 
11 The criticisms of the Mesirow Report and of AccuWeb's 
expert witness, Goldfarb, are summarized in the sentences that 
follow.  First, the Mesirow Report's author made no independent 
attempt to verify the data upon which the report was based.  The 
Mesirow Report's author stated, "In arriving at the opinions and 
conclusions presented in this report, we have relied on the 
accuracy and completeness of information provided to us by 
[AccuWeb] and its counsel.  We have accepted this information 
without further verification."  Second, the Mesirow Report's 
author admitted that he was "not engaged to review or examine 
[AccuWeb's] 
financial 
statements 
in 
accordance 
with 
the 
standards established by the American Institute of Certified 
Public Accountants."  Third, Goldfarb's opinions about AccuWeb's 
future fair market value were based on a number of assumptions.  
Goldfarb's first assumption was that the date on which AccuWeb 
suffered its actual damages was November 15, 2002, instead of 
the date of the patent's expiration, which was December 10, 
1995.  Goldfarb's second assumption was that one or more 
competitors would obtain the 414 patent's technology and would 
introduce products that contained the technology into the 
marketplace, 
which 
Goldfarb 
was 
forced 
to 
admit 
at 
his 
deposition had not yet occurred. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
17 
 
should have been weighed by a jury and not determined on summary 
judgment.  The Respondents' evidence that AccuWeb continued to 
charge premium prices for its products that incorporated the 414 
patent's technology after the patent lapsed, that AccuWeb was 
profitable after the loss of the 414 patent, and that AccuWeb 
allegedly did not actively pursue any further sales of its 
business, might be helpful to a jury in determining the weight 
to be given to the Mesirow Report.  However, such facts do not 
mean that AccuWeb's damages claim must fail as a matter of law. 
¶27 It must be noted that, without a valid patent, AccuWeb 
could not license or assign the invention protected by the 414 
patent.  Federal statutes give patents "the attributes of 
personal property."  35 U.S.C. § 261 (2000).  Under federal 
statutes, "patents, or any interest therein," are "assignable in 
law."  Id.  As a result, the "patentee, or his assigns or legal 
representatives" may "grant and convey an exclusive right under 
his . . . patents," to another of "the whole or any specified 
part" of a patent.  Id.  Furthermore, a patent holder may grant 
licenses to others to use the invention in return for royalty 
payments.  Carbice Corp. v. Am. Patents Dev. Corp., 283 U.S. 27, 
30-31 (1931).  Wisconsin case law is in accord, and this court 
has held that "[t]he right to exclude others is a valuable right 
and the loss of it would be an injury . . . ."  Boehm v. 
Wheeler, 65 Wis. 2d 668, 678, 223 N.W.2d 536 (1974), overruled 
on other grounds by Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc., 113 Wis. 2d 
550, 560, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983). 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
18 
 
¶28 As a result of AccuWeb's inability to license or 
assign the invention protected by the 414 patent after that 
patent lapsed, we are satisfied that the patent's lapse is a 
loss to AccuWeb, one that a jury could reasonably determine 
constituted sufficient evidence of damages. 
¶29  Reasonable competing inferences could be drawn from 
the substantial reduction in the amount of FiTech's offer to 
purchase AccuWeb after FiTech completed its due diligence 
process.  It is reasonable to draw the inference that FiTech 
learned of the lapse of the 414 patent through the due diligence 
investigation.  As we have previously discussed, summary 
judgment materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to 
the nonmoving party, here AccuWeb.  Rainbow Country Rentals, 286 
Wis. 2d 170, ¶13. 
¶30 FiTech had access to public records during its due 
diligence process that would have shown that the 414 patent had 
expired.  A jury certainly could consider whether a reasonable 
inference could be drawn from AccuWeb's evidence that FiTech 
reduced its offer to purchase AccuWeb because FiTech found out 
about the 414 patent's expiration.  While the Respondents may 
make an argument to the jury at trial about the potential 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
19 
 
shortcomings in AccuWeb's arguments on this issue,12 when viewed 
in the light most favorable to AccuWeb, enough evidence existed 
to support reasonable inferences sufficient to defeat a motion 
for summary judgment.  The reasonable competing inferences 
presented on the summary judgment motion here favor the 
nonmoving party, AccuWeb.  Id.  We are satisfied that the 
reasonable competing inferences that could be drawn from 
FiTech's substantial reduction in its offer, from approximately 
$12.2 million to $5.5 million, presented a genuine issue of 
material fact on diminished business valuation damages. 
¶31  AccuWeb presented the testimony of Buisker and his 
son, Brian, both on the 414 patent's value and on the reasons 
they believed that the sale of AccuWeb to FiTech fell through, 
causing them monetary damage.  This testimony should not have 
been rejected in ruling on the summary judgment motion against 
AccuWeb.  This court has stated, "Wisconsin case law is clear 
that an owner of property may testify as to its value and that 
such testimony may properly support a jury verdict for damages, 
even though the opinion is not corroborated or based on 
                                                 
12 Even though there is nothing in the record to prove or 
disprove their speculation, the Respondents speculate that 
FiTech likely did not pull out of the transaction because it 
discovered that the 414 patent had lapsed because, if FiTech had 
withdrawn its offer "as a result of any matter arising from 
FiTech's due diligence investigation . . ." of AccuWeb, FiTech 
would have been entitled to recover its $85,000 deposit.  There 
is no evidence in the record that FiTech attempted to recover 
its deposit.  The Respondents also speculate that the patent 
must not have had value because there is no evidence in the 
record that any other companies ever used the technology 
formerly protected by the 414 patent. 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
20 
 
independent factual data."  Mayberry v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 
2005 WI 13, ¶42, 278 Wis. 2d 39, 692 N.W.2d 226.  We held in 
Mayberry that such testimony was "sufficient to survive summary 
judgment."  Id. (footnote omitted).  However, as in Mayberry, 
the Respondents may challenge the weight and credibility of such 
opinion testimony at trial.  Id.  
¶32 Respondents cite our Tietsworth decision in support of 
their position.  Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2004 WI 
32, 270 Wis. 2d 146, 677 N.W.2d 233.  Tietsworth was "a class 
action lawsuit on behalf of certain Harley-Davidson motorcycle 
owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive 
relief . . . for an alleged defect in the motorcycles’ engines."  
Id., ¶1.  The plaintiffs did not allege "any personal injury or 
property damage caused by the defective engines," nor did they 
allege "that their motorcycle engines have actually failed or 
malfunctioned in any way."  Id.  Rather, they alleged their 
motorcycles were diminished in value because the defect created 
a "'propensity'" for premature engine failure.  Id.  This court 
held that an allegation that a product had diminished in value, 
because the product had "demonstrated a propensity for premature 
failure such that the product might or will at some point in the 
future fail prematurely [was] too uncertain and speculative to 
constitute a legally cognizable tort injury and [was] therefore 
insufficient to state damages in a tort claim for fraud."  Id., 
¶3.  We stated, "Actual damage is harm that has already occurred 
or is 'reasonably certain' to occur in the future.  . . .  
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
21 
 
Actual damage is not the mere possibility of future harm."  Id., 
¶17 (citations omitted). 
¶33  The reliance by the Respondents on Tietsworth is 
misplaced.  In Tietsworth, the alleged defect's potential for 
future damage was uncertain and speculative.  Id.  In contrast, 
in the present case, AccuWeb has established that the 414 patent 
lapsed, which is the "defect" that AccuWeb claims resulted in 
damages.  That actual lapse is very different than a claim that 
an engine may fail in the future, especially when viewed in 
conjunction with the reduction in the FiTech offer from 
approximately $12.2 million to $5.5 million. 
¶34 Given the standard of review on summary judgment 
motions, we hold that AccuWeb demonstrated that there were 
genuine issues of material fact that were sufficient to preclude 
the granting of a motion for summary judgment against it on the 
issues of whether there was evidence of damages resulting from 
the loss of its 414 patent, and the amount of those damages.  
Based on the record before us, we are satisfied that AccuWeb 
could present evidence sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to 
award damages to the company in an amount that is supported by 
the evidence.  We, therefore, reverse the decision of the court 
of appeals because we hold that there were genuine issues of 
material fact that precluded summary judgment against AccuWeb. 
By the Court.—Reversed and remanded. 
¶35 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2005AP3190 
 
 
 
1