Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.

320 F.3d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P created a template to improve computer-aided design (CAD) software. P filed a patent application for his template on February 27, 1989. On June 12, 1990, United States Patent No. 4,933,514 ( '514 patent) issued. On February 1, 1993, P requested reexamination of the '514 patent in view of prior art, namely the Keymaster template. The PTO issued a reexamination certificate on December 9, 1997. George W. Ford, III, a development engineer, designed Geodraft, a DOS-based add-on program to operate with CAD. Geodraft allows an engineer to insert technical tolerances for features of the computer-generated design. Geodraft works in conjunction with the CAD system to ensure that the design complies with ANSI Y14.5M-a task previously error-prone due to the standard's complexity. Geodraft automatically includes symbols specifying the correct GD&T parameters. Mr. Ford obtained a registered copyright, TX 2-939-672, covering Geodraft. In 1989, Ford offered P an exclusive license to his Geodraft software. P accepted that offer and bundled Geodraft and Cadjet together as the Designer's Toolkit. P sold the Designer's Toolkit with a shrink-wrap license that prohibited any reverse engineering. In 1989, D developed and marketed other tools for CADKEY. One of those tools, Draft-Pak version 1 and 2, featured a template and GD&T software. In 1988 and 1989, P offered to establish a formal relationship with D, including bundling his template with Draft-Pak. D rejected that offer because it had 'the in-house capability to develop the type of products you have proposed.' By January 1991, D had obtained copies of Designer's Toolkit. Three months later, D introduced Draft-Pak version 3, incorporating many of the features of Designer's Toolkit. P negotiated with Cadkey, Inc., to provide the Designer's Toolkit free with CADKEY. Mr. Bowers planned to recoup his profits by selling software upgrades to the users that he hoped to lure to his products. Following pressure from D, Cadkey, Inc., repudiated its distribution agreement with P. D purchased Cadkey, Inc., and eliminated P from the CADKEY network. On May 16, 1991, D sued P for a declaratory judgment that 1) D's products do not infringe the '514 patent, 2) the '514 patent is invalid, and 3) the '514 patent is unenforceable. P filed counterclaims for copyright infringement, patent infringement, and breach of contract. The jury found for P and awarded $1,948,869 for copyright infringement, $3,831,025 for breach of contract, and $232,977 for patent infringement. The district court set aside the copyright damages as duplicative of the contract damages and entered judgment for $5,270,142 (including pre-judgment interest). D appealed.