Two Product Market for Bamboo Decking Justifies Jury Award of Lost Profits

October 19, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

The District of Delaware recently held that evidence addressing a lack of non-infringing alternatives from the perspective of the market as a whole, as opposed to customer-by-customer, may suffice when the market includes only two players—the patentee and the accused infringer.

Lost Profits

This case involved two competitors that sell outdoor decking products. More specifically, the Plaintiffs and Defendants both sell bamboo products for use in outdoor decking.

Following a jury’s determination that it infringed Plaintiffs’ patent, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the jury’s $1.5 million damages award was not supported by substantial evidence because Plaintiffs had failed to prove lost profits. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs failed to establish the absence of non-infringing alternatives on a customer-by-customer basis and, as a result, failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s lost profits award.

The district court rejected Defendants’ argument, noting that a patentee is not required to intone the name of each customer or prove what each and every customer would have found to be an acceptable alternative. Rather, evidence that addresses the market as a whole may suffice in certain circumstances. Reviewing the evidence presented at trial, the district court explained that the evidence showed that both parties sell competing outdoor bamboo products. Both parties received certifications for their bamboo products that no other companies received. And according to at least one witness, the parties were the only companies in the market whose products were actually considered to be bamboo. A customer of both parties also testified that he considered the parties’ products complementary and that he had no other options for outdoor bamboo decking. Relying on this evidence, Plaintiffs’ expert testified that the market only had two players (Plaintiffs and Defendants) and, consequently, there were no acceptable non-infringing alternatives in the relevant outdoor bamboo decking market. According to the district court, this evidence provided sufficient proof of a lack of acceptable non-infringing alternatives even though Plaintiffs’ expert did not specifically analyze the preferences of each and every customer because there were no other companies making comparable products that might qualify as an acceptable non-infringing alternative.

Enhanced Damages

In addition to denying Defendants’ JMOL challenging the jury’s lost profits award, the court also granted Plaintiffs’ motion for enhanced damages. While acknowledging that the decision of whether to enhance damages only requires the court to consider the egregiousness of the circumstances of the case, the court did so by applying the Read factors. On the whole, the court found that seven of the nine Read factors were either neutral or, given the court’s finding that Defendants did not engage in litigation misconduct, weighed against enhancement.

Nevertheless, the court enhanced the jury’s damages award because two factors weighed so strongly in favor of enhancement. First, the court found strong evidence of copying—the accused products were produced in the same factory as Plaintiffs’ products and were, for all intents and purposes, identical to Plaintiffs’. Second, the court found strong evidence of Defendants’ motivation for harm. In particular, the court found that one of Defendants’ employees harbored animus towards Plaintiffs beyond a mere sense of competition. The court thus held that an enhancement of the damages award by 50% was warranted.

Practice Tip: A plaintiff seeking a damages award of lost profits should consider whether the relevant market can be defined in a manner such that it only includes two products—its own product and the accused product. Such a market may be sufficient to support the conclusion that there are no acceptable non-infringing alternatives.

Dasso Intl., Inc. v. Moso N.A., Inc., 17-CV-1574, 2023 WL 5349374 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.