GRAIN PROCESSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MAIZE-PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee., 185 F.3d 1341

Summary

The district court denied plaintiff lost profits for defendant's infringement of a patent and instead awarded plaintiff a three percent royalty on defendant's infringing sales. The district court found that defendant proved that a non-infringing substitute was available, though not on the market or for sale, during the period of infringement. Further, this substitute was acceptable to all purchasers of the infringing product and defendant thus rebutted the inference of "but for" causation for plaintiff's alleged lost sales. The district court concluded that plaintiff did not have a patent on D.E. 10 maltodextrins, the economically significant product, and therefore could not recover lost profits damages. Plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court and held that defendant proved that Process IV was available and that Process IV Lo-Dex 10 was an acceptable substitute for the claimed invention. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Process IV...