GoogleStoleOurPatent9123 hours ago
This is from document 186 the original decision from Judge Scarsi as to damages and "Nominal" damages. Nothing has changed since he wrote this. When he told Samsung "What does that have to do with Kronos at the hearing"? This is what he was referring to. Here, however, Samsung provides no authority for the proposition that the Courtmay deny summary judgment to Netlist as to liability, or enter summary judgmentagainst Netlist, for failure to provide evidence of actual damages. New York law?infer[s] at least nominal damages at the moment of breach.? Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp.,81 N.Y.2d 90, 94 (1993). ?Even if it were shown that no actual damages have beensustained, plaintiff would seem entitled to proceed to trial at least on its contract causeof action if only to vindicate its right to nominal damages . . . .? C.K.S. Ice Cream Co.v. Frusen Gladje Franchise, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 206, 208 (1991); accord McCoy Assocs.,218 F. Supp. 2d at 294. The Court may not enter summary judgment against Netlistsolely because there is no proof of actual injury. See, e.g., Gould Paper Corp. v.Madisen Corp., 614 F. Supp. 2d 485, 490?91 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (declining to dismissbreach claim at summary judgment because claimant ?may be entitled to recovernominal damages?); NAF Holdings, LLC v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 762(PAE), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71493, at #$%$59 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2016) (denyingsummary judgment on breach claim based on availability of nominal damages). TheCourt rejects Samsung?s damages argument.
Less
Bullish
