Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Metso Minerals, Inc. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Ltd.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 29, 2014

METSO MINERALS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
POWERSCREEN INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, now known as TEREX GB LIMITED, TEREX CORPORATION, POWERSCREEN NEW YORK, INC. and EMERALD EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants.

Cozen O'Connor, Michael C. Stuart, Esq., Marilyn Neiman, Esq., Lisa Ferrari, Esq., Of Counsel, New York, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Lathrop & Gage LLP, Jon R. Trembath, Esq., Of Counsel, Denver, CO, Attorneys for the Defendants.

ORDER

ARTHUR D. SPATT, District Judge.

This matter was tried before a jury from October 18 to December 6, 2010. On March 3, 2011, judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff Metso Minerals Inc. ("Metso"). Following certain post-trial proceedings, on August 18, 2011, the Defendants Powerscreen International Distribution Limited, now known as Terex GB limited, Terex Corporation ("Terex"), Powerscreen New York, Inc., and Emerald Equipment Systems, Inc. (collectively "Powerscreen") appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Court's orders relating to a motion by Metso for injunctive relief.

On January 6, 2012, Powerscreen appealed to the Federal Circuit from the Court's judgment based on the jury verdict, and the orders regarding pre- and post-trial motions, and other decisions and rulings affecting the questions of the validity and infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5, 577, 618 ("the 618 patent").

On June 22, 2012, this Court held a hearing regarding whether to stay all post-trial proceedings as well as regarding the propriety and amount of a bond on appeal. Regarding a bond, the following colloquy took place:

THE COURT: I don't understand why a bond is not posted. I will find out. Why isn't a bond posted?
MR. TREMBATH: Your Honor, one wasn't required. We are happy to post a bond. Give us three weeks. We will post it for the $50 million, as proposed, with a caveat that if the final judgment isn't $50 million, we would like Metso to pay a pro rata share of the cost of the bond. If that is okay with the court.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. You will post a bond for the whole $50 million and what?
MR. TREMBATH: If their judgment doesn't total $50 million at the end of the day, because we are operating on their number, we don't think they get the $50 million.
THE COURT: If not $50 million, they will pay back the amount of the bond.
MR. TREMBATH: The bond.
THE COURT: That is fair enough. What do you say about that?
MR. STUART: Well, first of all, they have looked at all our filing and they have admitted at least $44 million. So we are talking about a difference of $6 million. And I think that it is premature to make any sort of ruling on that or ask us to agree to anything. After there is an appeal, then they can ask for costs based upon ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.