Both the plaintiff and the defendants are makers of agricultural GPS guidance products designed to aid in the accurate application of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Trimble sued for patent infringement, alleging that the defendants utilized technology for “adaptive curve” guidance (a method of providing guidance to farm equipment operators) that was owned by Trimble.
Econ One was retained by counsel for the defendants in this matter to analyze damages. Charles Mahla demonstrated that the plaintiff’s damage theory was based on a too broad interpretation of the patent at issue. Dr. Mahla’s analysis focused on the fact that Trimble’s patented technology was but one method of providing adaptive curve guidance and that the cost to the defendants to redesign its products to perform that function in a non-infringing way was relatively low. After each side’s experts’ reports were submitted and expert depositions were taken, the Court ruled in favor of the defendants on summary judgment.