U.S. District Court Jury Hands Down Verdict
In Case against MHI’s 2.4 MW Wind Turbines

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
General Electric Company (GE) inaugurated litigation against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (MPSA)1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking compensation for damages, etc. for alleged infringement of two of GE's U.S. patents by 2.4 MW (megawatt) variable-speed wind turbines manufactured by MHI. On March 8 (CST) the jury handed down a verdict requiring the two defendant companies to pay GE damages in the amount of US$170 million.

    1. Plaintiff

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

    2. Background to the jury verdict
    • February 11, 2010   GE files for legal action against MHI and MPSA.
    • February 10, 2012   The Court hands down a summary judgment ruling one of GE's patents is invalid. (MHI wins the case.)
    • March 8, 2012   The jury hands down a verdict on the one remaining patent in question.

    This case, filed by GE against MHI and MPSA, involves two patents different from the three patents in dispute in conjunction with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), the details of which were disclosed on March 1, 2012.

    3. Overview of the jury verdict

    The jury found that MHI's 2.4 MW variable-speed wind turbines infringe one of GE's patents and that there is no clear proof that said patent is invalid. It found that the amount MHI and MPSA should pay to GE in damages compensation is US$170 million.

    4. MHI's view

    MHI respects the intellectual properties of all other companies, and it believes it has not infringed the patent concerned in the jury verdict. As described in "5. Outlook" below, since the court proceedings are to continue, the company intends to take the necessary measures to enable its claims to be recognized. It may be added that the GE patent in question is currently undergoing reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and that body has issued a rejection notice to the effect that the patent is not valid.

    5. Outlook

    The defendants have the right to request a review of the verdict handed down in the district court. Furthermore, "inequitable conduct"2 trial is scheduled to continue in the district court, and a judgment will be issued only after that second phase of the trial has been completed. Going forward, it is conceivable that disclosure of some matters may be called for, and in that event we will issue notifications swiftly.

    6. Impact

    Impact from the jury verdict on MHI's earnings is currently under close examination. In the event that disclosure of certain matters is called for in the future, we will issue notifications swiftly.


    1 MPSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (MHIA), an MHI subsidiary, that serves as the company's power systems operation base in the U.S.

    2 If an applicant for a U.S. patent deceived the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by intentionally withholding information important to rendering a judgment on the application's patentability (e.g. similar pre-existing technology, etc.), the applicant will be barred from exercising its patent rights. While the first phase trial was tried by the jury, this second phase trial is to be tried by a judge.