The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.,
and OSHKOSH CORPORATION
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No.: 8:18-cv-617-TPB-TGW
E-ONE, INC. and REV GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS PIERCE
MANUFACTURING INC. AND OSHKOSH CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
PRE- AND POST- JUDGMENT INTEREST
This matter is before the Court upon “Plaintiffs Pierce Manufacturing Inc.
and Oshkosh Corporation’s Motion for Pre- and Post- Judgment Interest.” (Doc.
453). Defendants filed a response in partial opposition. (Doc. 487). The Court held
a hearing to address this and other matters on December 6, 2021. (Doc. 515). Upon
review of the motion, response, legal arguments, court file, and the record, the
Court finds as follows:
Background
Plaintiffs Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. and Oshkosh Corporation brought this
patent action against Defendants E-One, Inc. and REV Group, Inc., alleging
infringement of patents for a particular fire truck design – a single rear axle quint
fire truck.1 Plaintiffs specifically accused Defendants of infringing claims 1, 5, and
20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,536 (the “’536 patent”). (Doc. 426). Following trial, the
jury returned a mixed verdict, finding Defendants liable for infringing claims 1 and
5, but finding claim 20 invalid as anticipated by the prior art Hinsdale Quint fire
truck. For the infringement of claims 1 and 5, the jury returned a damages award
of $1,287,854 in lost profits and $170,500 in reasonable royalties.
Analysis
The parties do not dispute that an award of prejudgment and post-judgment
interest is appropriate. The only disputes relate to the accrual, rate, and
calculation of prejudgment interest.
The Court is awarded wide discretion in awarding prejudgment interest.
General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 656-57 (1983). “For example, it
may be appropriate to limit prejudgment interest, or perhaps deny it altogether,
where the patent owner has been responsible for undue delay in prosecuting the
lawsuit. There may be other circumstances in which it may be appropriate not to
award prejudgment interest.” Id.
In selecting an appropriate interest rate, the Court must be mindful that
“[p]rejudgment interest has no punitive, but only compensatory, purposes.” Oiness
v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The purpose of prejudgment
interest is to place a plaintiff “in the situation [it] would have occupied if the wrong
1 For a more detailed explanation of the factual background of this case, see Pierce
Manufacturing, Inc. v. E-One, Inc., No. 8:18-cv-617-T-30TGW, 2020 WL 416268, at *1-2
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2020).
had not been committed.” Fromson v. Western Litho Plate and Supply Co., 853 F.2d
1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Accrual of Prejudgment Interest
Defendants argue that any prejudgment interest calculation should exclude
the period of time that the trial was continued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
case was originally schedule for trial on March 23, 2020. (See Doc. 336). Ten days
before trial, Plaintiffs moved to continue the trial date because Pierce had issued a
travel ban for all its employees due to the COVID-19 situation. (Doc. 342).
Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, citing their expended investments in
preparation for trial and the fact that trial was less than two weeks away. (Doc.
346). At that time, the court was still operating and trials were taking place.
Nevertheless, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance (Doc. 349), and
the rescheduled jury trial commenced the following year on June 7, 2021.
Courts are granted wide discretion to limit prejudgment interest when the
party seeking prejudgment interest requested a stay or continuance that resulted in
a delay of the trial. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 939 F.2d 1540, 1546 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment
interest for the period of the continuance they requested. Accordingly, the award of
prejudgment interest shall accrue from July 15, 2017 (the date of first alleged
infringement) through March 23, 2020 (the original trial date) and from June 7,
2021 (the date the reschedule trial began) through July 28, 2021 (the date of
Judgment), excluding the period from March 23, 2020, to June 7, 2021.
Prejudgment Interest Rate
Plaintiffs request that the Court apply the Florida statutory rate of 5.53%,
while Defendants contend that the weighted average prime rate of 4.36% is more
appropriate. “The commercial prime rate ‘appears to be the most common indicia
used in calculating prejudgment interest.’” Golden Voice Tech. & Training, L.L.C.
v. Rockwell Elec., Case No. 6:01-cv-01036, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22064, at *20
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2004) (citing Pat. L. Fundamentals § 18:63 (2d ed.)). The Court
agrees with Defendants that the weighted average prime rate of 4.36% is
appropriate here.
Prejudgment Interest Calculation
Plaintiffs request a calculation of prejudgment interest based on the notion
that the entire damages award of $1,458,354 would have been paid in a single lump
sum on the date of the first alleged infringement, July 15, 2017. Defendants
disagree and argue that a calculation based on six quarterly payments spanning the
damages period from July 15, 2017, through December 13, 2018 (the effective date
of the preliminary injunction), is a more practical and realistic approach. The Court
agrees that Defendants’ calculation would better match the typical business
practice of paying royalties on a quarterly basis and place Plaintiffs in the situation
they would have occupied if the infringement had not occurred. There is no realistic
scenario where Plaintiffs would have received the entire amount of the damages
award as a lump sum on the first date of infringement.
Accordingly, the Court finds that six quarterly payments, spanning July 15,
2017, to December 13, 2018, at the prejudgment interest rate of 4.36% compounded
annually, excluding the period from March 23, 2020, through June 7, 2021, is an
appropriate model for calculating prejudgment interest in this case.
Post-Judgment Interest
There is no dispute as to Plaintiffs’ request for post-judgment interest.
Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs post-judgment interest from July 28, 2021,
the date of Judgment, to accrue at a rate of 0.072% per annum—the rate equal to
the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding
the date of the judgment. (28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)). The rate is computed daily and
compounded annually. (28 U.S.C. § 1961(b)). Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to post-
judgment interest on the $1,458,354 sum at a daily rate of $2.88.2 All such post-
judgment interest is to run from the date of Judgment until the Judgment is paid in
full.
It is therefore
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) “Plaintiffs Pierce Manufacturing Inc. and Oshkosh Corporation’s Motion for
Pre- and Post- Judgment Interest” (Doc. 453) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
2 Formula applied: Treasury Nominal 1-year percentage rate (0.00072) x Principal amount
($1,458,354) = $1,050.01/365 days = daily rate ($2.88).
(2) On or before February 28, 2022, the parties are directed to submit a joint
statement setting forth their calculation of prejudgment interest using the
criteria set forth in this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 16th day of
February, 2022.
□□ f?
Lh} fF [Abe
—“ fw! (Gy
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6