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

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

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

© 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.