Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational, No. 17-1475 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2017)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. and BRP U.S. Inc. (collectively, “BRP”) appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s denial of judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,568,969 (“’969 patent”) and 6,793,545 (“’545 patent”) would have been obvious, that Arctic Cat Inc. (“Arctic Cat”) failed to mark patented products, that the jury’s royalty award was based on improper expert testimony, and that BRP did not willfully infringe the asserted claims.