JENOPTIK AG wins patent litigation before U.S. District Court in San Jose, California

Update on ad-hoc announcement dated February 1, 2007 and the Legal Risks as they were set out in the Obligatory Risk Analysis of the Jenoptik Annual Report

(PresseBox) ( Jena, )
On August 3, 2007, the District Court for the Northern District of California granted Jenoptik's motion for judgment as a matter of law and held that the respective patent claims asserted by Asyst Technologies, Inc. are invalid. Previously, on February 1, 2007, a jury had found that Jenoptik infringed certain claims of Asyst's patent and found damages amounting to approx. 56.7 million euros in a patent dispute which has been pending for more than ten years. The jury also recommended that the District Court find that Asyst's claims are valid. Contrary to this recommendation, the District Court held all of the remaining claims invalid and entered judgment for Jenoptik for the third time in succession.

The losing plaintiff may choose to file another appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. The District Court already held, however, that should the Court of Appeals reverse the decision and remand the litigation, that it would grant Jenoptik a new trial regarding the validity of the asserted patent claims.

While the issue of damages is now moot, the District Court also called into question the amount of damages found by the jury. The Court indicated that should the Court of Appeals reverse both the judgment for Jenoptik and the alternative grant of a new trial regarding validity, the Court will revisit the issues regarding damages. The District Court stated that its present inclination would be to grant a new trial on damages or to recommend a reduction in damages to an amount that the plaintiff would be able to prove in light of the evidence and the appropriate legal standards. Jenoptik previously requested a reduction in damages requested by the plaintiff according to the so called "maximum recovery rule" to a one digit million euro amount based on the sales volume of the product accused of infringement.

Jenoptik and its counsel in the United States regard this decision as a confirmation of their legal opinion that the plaintiff's claims are unfounded. Due to this opinion, Jenoptik had made no provisions for damage claims as described in the 2006 consolidated financial statements. Therefore, there will be no extraordinary income from the release of provisions improving the 2007 group results.
The publisher indicated in each case is solely responsible for the press releases above, the event or job offer displayed, and the image and sound material used (see company info when clicking on image/message title or company info right column). As a rule, the publisher is also the author of the press releases and the attached image, sound and information material.
The use of information published here for personal information and editorial processing is generally free of charge. Please clarify any copyright issues with the stated publisher before further use. In the event of publication, please send a specimen copy to