For all you lacrosse fans...

[gelshmoff]

This is #6 in Top Jury Verdicts of 2003 in this months issue of Lawyers Weekly (in Massachusetts). I don't know if there is an online version, so here it is: Cliffsnotes: STX copied Brine's design. Result: $1.9 million to Brine. "#6 $1.9 Million Brine, Inc. v. STX, LLC U.S. District Court No. 99-40167-NMG Date of Verdict: Nov. 17, 2003 Plaintiff's attorney [for Brine]: John O. Mirick, Esq. of Worcester When Worcester attorney John O. Mirick got his hands on the defendant's computer design of its lacrosse stick, he knew it would be pretty solid proof to a jury that the competitor had infringed on his client's patent. It was convincing enough evidence, in fact, to earn plaintiff Brine, Inc. a $1.9 million verdict with a finding that the infringement was willful--a finding that Mirick is now using to bolster his claim for increased damages and attorney's fees. 'It was a matter of being able to say, "Here is the man who designed the product and his design shows that there was infringement,"' Mirick says of defense witness Kevin Vititoe, an industrial designer for defendant STX, LLC. Brine, a leading sporting goods manufacturer, was contending that STX, a competitor, had infringed on two of its patents for lacrosse sticks with molded plastic heads with lowered sidewalls--a design that lowered the center of gravity below the centerline of the shaft and gave players a better tactile feel for the orientation of the stick's head. Two years after the introduction of Brine's 'Edge Offset' Head in 1995, STX began marketing similar products, three of which--the Octane, the Proton and the X-2--were involved in the lawsuit. To defend the patents, Brine used Dr. Raymond Hagglund, a professor of mechanical engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who conducted precise measurements of the competitor's products to show that they infringed on Brine's design. However, in the end the jury found that STX had infringed on only one of Brine's patents. Mirick attributes this to the fact that the language in patent 549 referred to an 'abruptly descending' head design, which STX persistently countered with arguments that its stick had only a 'gradually descending' head. Language in patent 026, 'a continuation in part patent,' referred to a design in which the sidewall descends and continues at or below the centerline of the shaft--an arguement that STX had a hard time overcoming based on the measurements introduced at trial. The defendant has filed a motion asking the judge to overturn the jury's decision, and the company promises to appeal the verdict. The plaintiff, meanwhile, has asked the judge to enter a permanent injunction against STX to stop the production of any sticks deemed in violation of the patent."

To remove this ad, register today for free or log in if already registered!

[Ed]

wow, aren't there a lot of other manufacturer's with offset heads? when i use to play, my debeer's head did

[gelshmoff]

Originally posted by Ed
wow, aren't there a lot of other manufacturer's with offset heads? when i use to play, my debeer's head did

I don't know about other manufacturers. I guess these must've been too close.