Opinion ID: 778284
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Combined Damages

Text: 44 Finally, Catalina argues that Lamps Plus was not entitled to recover a reasonable royalty for infringement of the '141 patent as well as infringer profits for infringement of the '904 patent, an issue that the parties characterize as one of first impression. Relying on Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp., 975 F.2d 815, 24 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed.Cir.1992), Catalina argues that a patentee must elect to recover either a reasonable royalty or infringer profits. In Braun, we considered whether a court could treble damages for willful infringement of a design patent. Our decision compared the language of § 289 to § 284. Section 284 states that a patentee shall recover damages adequate to compensate for the infringement and the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. 35 U.S.C. § 284 (1994). Section 289, however, has no provision for enhanced damages and states that the patentee shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement. Id. § 289. Because Braun elected to recover infringer profits under § 289, we determined that the district court clearly exceeded its statutory authority by trebling damages. Braun, 975 F.2d at 824, 24 USPQ2d at 1128. Braun therefore does not address the specific issue raised by Catalina: whether a patentee may recover infringer profits and a reasonable royalty when both a design patent and a utility patent have been infringed by the sale of a single product. 45 When only a design patent is at issue, a patentee may not recover both infringer profits and additional damages under § 284. The last paragraph of § 289 states: 46 Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach any other remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions of this title, but he shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement. 47 35 U.S.C. § 289 (1994) (emphasis added). [T]he purpose of this latter phrase is to insure that a patentee not recover both the profit of an infringer and some additional damage remedy from the same infringer, such as a reasonable royalty. Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F.Supp. 476, 496, 207 USPQ 481, 501 (D.Minn.1980) (relied on by Braun, 975 F.2d at 824, 24 USPQ2d at 1128); see also Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 643-44, 123 USPQ 3, 9 (5th Cir.1959) (If the statutory measure of compensatory damages is to be found in 35 U.S.C.A. 289, a royalty in addition to profits should not have been awarded since the profit was in excess of the minimum as fixed by that section.). Thus, while § 289 prohibits a double recovery of an infringer's profits, it does not directly address whether an additional remedy may be recovered when both a design patent and a utility patent have been infringed. 48 We resolve this issue by focusing on the conduct that has damaged Lamps Plus: the sale of Catalina's tree torchiere lamps. Each sale constitutes an infringement of the '141 utility patent because whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell or sells any patented invention is an infringer. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (1994). Likewise, the same sale constitutes an infringement of the '904 design patent. Id. § 289 (permitting the award of infringer profits from someone who applies the patented design ... for the purpose of sale or sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied.). Lamps Plus is entitled to damages for each infringement, but once it receives profits under § 289 for each sale, Lamps Plus is not entitled to a further recovery from the same sale because the award of infringer profits under § 289 also constitutes damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer. Id. § 284; see CPG Prods. Corp. v. Pegasus Luggage, Inc., 776 F.2d 1007, 1014 n. 4, 227 USPQ 497, 502 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Though the district court ordered accountings for damages resulting from patent infringement and from unfair competition, Lark is not entitled to dual damages resulting from the same act.). The reasonable royalty in this case was determined to be $660,000, the minimum amount that Lamps Plus is entitled to receive under § 284. We have also determined that Lamps Plus can recover infringer profits of $767,942, which is more than the reasonable royalty sought by Lamps Plus under § 284. Thus, the recovery of infringer profits resulting from the single act of selling lamps satisfies Lamps Plus' entitlement under § 289 and more than satisfies its entitlement under § 284. See, e.g., Contour Chair Lounge Co. v. True-Fit Chair, Inc., 648 F.Supp. 704, 719, 1 USPQ2d 1353, 1364 (E.D.Mo. 1986) (Plaintiff is also entitled to lost profits for [trade dress infringement]; however, plaintiff has already recovered these damages under its patent claim.). We therefore reverse the award of damages in the amount of $758,275.37, based on a reasonable royalty plus prejudgment interest, and affirm the award of damages of infringer profits plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $316,223.92 against Catalina and $562,090.49 against Home Depot.