- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
March 28, 2023Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2023 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellow and Pathfinder
March 22, 2023Benchmark Litigation Names Robins Kaplan 2023 Minnesota Law Firm of the Year
March 16, 2023Second Circuit Affirms Record $5.6 Billion Recovery in Antitrust Case
March 29-30, 2023ACI Managed Care Disputes and Litigation
April 3, 2023Conference of Tribal Lending Commissioners
April 11-13, 2023Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
March 2023Unintended Consequences of Banning Noncompete Agreements
March 26, 2023What I’ll Be Watching for in the Amgen Oral Arguments
March 13, 2023The Antitrust Case that Could Reshape Professional Golf
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Firm Secures Settlement During Midst of Patent Trial
Jury Gives $25 Million Award in Robins Kaplan Patent Case
February 27, 2003
By Julie Forster, Star Tribune Staff Writer
Reprinted with permission from the Star Tribune (2/27/2003)
A federal jury in Wilmington, Del., has awarded a small Michigan company $25 million in damages in a patent case argued by the Minneapolis law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi.
The jury found that Sony Corp. infringed on four patents related to digital camera technology held by St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. of Grosse Pointe, Mich.
Ronald Schutz, a patent trial lawyer and partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, represented the five-person St. Clair firm. The award, unless it is overturned, will be the third-largest awarded by a jury so far this year, according to the National Law Journal, which tracks such information.
The case concerned patents for the technology used in almost all digital cameras sold today, which enables the cameras to select among multiple image file formats such as JPEG and MPEG.
They are using the technology in their camera, and we believe that almost every camera maker is using the technology as well,” Schutz said. “Sony has the most significant market share and that’s why we sued them first.”
From July 1998 to the end of 2002, Sony generated $3 billion in sales from 70 different camera models that were multiple format digital cameras.
St. Clair acquired the four patents in 1995 from the inventors. The inventor’s company, Personal Computer Cameras Inc., will share in the award.
The two-week trial represented the first phase of the case, in which the jury decided that Sony was making a product covered by the St. Clair patents. In the second phase, which begins Monday, Sony will get a chance to prove that the patents are invalid.
If a jury decides the patents are invalid, the damage award is void.
Copyright 2003 Star Tribune. Republished with the permission of the Star Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul. No further republication or redistribution is permitted without the written consent of the Star Tribune.
Update: The patent case discussed in this Star Tribune report has settled after the verdict and there will not be a second phase. This means that there will be no challenge in this case to the validity of the patents.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.