SOUTHEAST CAPITAL FINANCING INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; FU SHENG INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA, AND PURIFINER DISTRIBUTION CORP., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES, AND ROBERT MALT, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
T/F SYSTEMS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this intellectual property dispute, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that T/F Systems held exclusive rights to manufacture and market certain products and was obligated to pay Malt a 5% royalty. However, the court reversed and remanded to require Purifiner to also pay Malt a 5% royalty for products it manufactured and sold in violation of Malt's patent and trademark rights.
The trial court properly awarded injunctive relief since Malt requested such relief in his pleadings, and no abuse of discretion occurred. However, the trial court erred in failing to order Purifiner to pay Malt a 5% royalty on products manufactured and sold in violation of Malt's rights.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by finding that a party holds the exclusive, worldwide right to manufacture and market certain products when such rights are c…
[2] A party contractually obligated to pay a royalty on manufactured and sold products must account for and pay the royalty on products manufactured and sold in violation of…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that T/F Systems held the exclusive, worldwide right to manufacture and market certain products. T/F Systems was contractually obligated to pay Malt a 5% royalty on the products which it manufactured and sold.”
Establishes that the trial court properly found T/F Systems' exclusive rights and royalty obligation to Malt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT/F Systems sued Purifiner and Malt over rights to manufacture and market Purifiner products. Malt counterclaimed for declaratory and injunctive relie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Royalty Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse as to Malt’s second point on cross appeal and affirm as to all other issues.
T/F Systems, Inc. filed suit against Puri-finer Distributing Corp. and Malt for relief concerning T/F Systems’ right to manufacture and market Purifiner products. Malt counterclaimed for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning Malt’s ownership of, and right to use, the patents and trademark. Malt also sought damages against T/F Systems for manufacturing, distributing and marketing products without paying Malt a 5% royalty. Malt also filed a cross-claim against Purifiner, for declaratory relief concerning Malt’s right to use and ownership of the patents and trademark, for injunctive relief, and for damages.
There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding that T/F Systems held the exclusive, worldwide right to manufacture and market certain products. T/F Systems was contractually obligated to pay Malt a 5% royalty on the products which it manufactured and sold.
The trial court also found that Purifiner improperly manufactured and marketed the products without Malt’s permission. However, the trial court did not order Purifiner to pay Malt a 5% royalty. The trial court’s order is reversed and remanded with instructions to order Purifiner to account to Malt for the products manufactured and sold in violation of Malt’s rights, and to pay Malt a 5% royalty on the same.
We comment on Appellants’ claim that the trial court erred in awarding injunctive relief to stop Purifiner from manufacturing and selling the products. Appellants claim that the trial court should not have awarded such relief because T/F did not request that specific relief in its pleadings.
The trial court acted within its discretion in awarding injunctive relief since Malt requested such relief in his pleadings. The record reflects no basis for concluding, as a matter of law, that the trial court was required to stay the otherwise valid cease and desist provisions of the judgment. In any event, the Appellants have waived their argument that Malt abandoned his claim for injunctive relief, as they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief. See Mestre Rental Co. v. Resources Recovery, Inc., 568 So. 2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part with respect to the omission of a provision in the trial court’s decision requiring Purifiner to pay the 5% royalty to Malt.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ. and MOE, LEROY H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Ins. v. First Floridian Auto & Home Ins. Co., 803 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…1070, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“[A]n appellate court cannot consider matters which are raised for the first time on appeal in an appellant’s reply brief’).... (Davis, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Southeast Capital Fin. v. T/F Sys., 616 So. 2d 482, 482-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that “the Appellants have waived their argument ... as they raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief.”). IV. The Department’s amended complaint and motion to vacate arbitration award alleged…
-
Luciano Martinez, M.D. & Leon & Martinez, M.D., P.A. v. Ipox, 925 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…al court liberally awarded costs based on the invalid proposal for settlement. This issue was waived because it was first raised in the reply brief. See Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Se. Capital Fin. Inc. v. T/F Sys., Inc., 616 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Even if the issue had not been waived, appellants have not demonstrated that the award of costs was not proper under the prevailing party costs statute, section 57.041(1), Florida Statutes (2001), which appellees relied upon in…
-
FU Sheng Indus. Co., Ltd. v. T/F Sys., Inc., 690 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…of T/F Systems was affirmed but that part of the judgment that failed to require PDC to account to Malt for the five percent royalty was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. See Southeast Capital Fin., Inc. v. T/F Sys., Inc., 616 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). On remand, T/F Systems and Malt moved to execute on the supersedeas bond and to set an evidentiary hearing seeking to recover delay damages. The trial court ordered the surety to pay T/F Systems the amount of its money judgment…
Authorities Cited
- Brunson v. State, 568 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)