Top of page. Skip to main contents. Skip to main menu. Skip to footer.

HOME > Notice > Regarding the Ruling of the U.S. District Court, Florida Middle District, On Patent Infringement Allegation Filed by MHI
Main contents start.

February 12, 2013

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Regarding the Ruling of the U.S. District Court, Florida Middle District,
On Patent Infringement Allegation Filed by MHI

In the matter of the suit filed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) against General Electric Company (GE) seeking compensation for damages, etc. for alleged infringement of one of MHI's U.S. patents by GE's wind turbines, on February 8, 2013 (U.S. Eastern Standard Time) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.) upheld its previously issued summary judgment and declared its finding that no patent infringement had occurred.

Earlier, on July 10, 2012 MHI had revealed that M.D. Fla. had granted a summary judgment in the matter dismissing MHI's complaint. The timeline of related events and other particulars relevant to the lawsuit are described below.

1. Defendant

Name: General Electric Company (GE)
Location: Connecticut, U.S.A.

2. Background
  • * May 20, 2010   MHI filed a lawsuit against GE.
  • * July 5, 2012   M.D. Fla. granted a summary judgment1 ruling that GE's wind turbines had not infringed a patent owned by MHI2. M.D. Fla. stated that claims should be interpreted based on embodiment in the patent specification, not by the plane meaning of language in the claim; and under such interpretation, it ruled that GE had not infringed on the cited patent.
  • * July 30, 2012   MHI filed its opposition to the ruling in the summary judgment.
  • * February 8, 2013   M.D. Fla. upheld its earlier summary judgment.

3. Overview of the Court's latest ruling

M.D. Fla. upheld its summary judgment passed down in July 2012 and reconfirmed that wind turbines made by GE had not infringed MHI's patent.

4. MHI's view

MHI believes that the interpretation of the patent claims rendered in M.D. Fla.'s judgment has too narrowly interpreted the patent's scope. As described in "5. Outlook" below, MHI intends to continue taking the necessary measures to enable its claim to be recognized.

5. Outlook

MHI has the option to appeal M.D. Fla.'s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Going forward, MHI will issue swift notification of any matters, etc. that merit disclosure in the course of the ongoing proceedings.

6. Impact on earnings

The ruling newly passed down by M.D. Fla. will have no impact on MHI's consolidated earnings. In the event that any related matters call for disclosure going forward, the company will issue notifications swiftly.

Notes:

1 A summary judgment is a judgment rendered solely by a judge, without passing through a formal factual inquiry in the presence of a panel of jurors. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have the right to request a review of a ruling handed down in a summary judgment.

2 The patent in question (U.S. Patent No. 7,452,185) is titled "Blade-Pitch-Angle Control Device and Wind Turbine Generator." It applies to technology to reduce the burden on a wind turbine by controlling the pitch angle of the turbine blades in accordance with the blade rotation angle and other factors.

Return to top.
Page Top