Biomet v Finnegan - CASE: Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CASE: Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals 967 A.2d 662 (D.C. 2009) Facts a. Plaintiff/Biomet – Manufacturer of orthopedic devices Defendant/Finnegan – law firm representing Biomet b. Biomet was sued by Dr. Raymond Tronzo for patent infringement, misuse of confidential information, and fraud. Following jury verdict, District Court awarded $7,134,000 in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. Finnegan handled Biomet’s appeal. Finnegan did not appeal the punitive damages at this point b/c ratio was 3:1. Finnegan was successful on appeal gaining a reversal of the patent infringement finding. On remand the district court found Biomet liable for $520 in compensatory damages. Finnegan now challenged the punitive damages as unconstitutional b/c the ratio was now 38,000:1. Court reduced the punitive damages to $52,000. On appeal, the Federal Circuit ruled that b/c the punitive damages were not challenge in the initial appeal, Biomet had waived its right to challenge. Fed Cir reinstated the $20 mil punitive damages award.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
Ask a homework question - tutors are online