A California federal jury has awarded Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy Inc. $785,000 in damages after determining that Sigray Inc. infringed on Zeiss’s X-ray imaging patents. The jury concluded that Sigray’s infringement was not willful and declined to award any lost profits.
This verdict is the latest development in a protracted legal battle between the two companies. Zeiss initiated the lawsuit in August 2020, alleging that Sigray’s Prisma and TriLambda X-ray microscopes infringed upon U.S. Patent Nos. 7,057,187 and 7,400,704. Zeiss also accused Sigray of misappropriating trade secrets related to X-ray microscopy.
In response, Sigray challenged the validity of Zeiss’s patents through inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had upheld the validity of Zeiss’s ‘704 patent. The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB had improperly construed the claim term “between 1 and 10 times” magnification, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the prior art did not anticipate the patent. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the issue of obviousness. ([leagle.com](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20250523178?utm_source=openai))
Throughout the litigation, the Northern District of California court addressed several procedural matters. In April 2025, Judge Edward J. Davila granted Zeiss’s motion to serve supplemental expert reports, allowing the company to present additional evidence in support of its claims. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2021cv01129/373690/268?utm_source=openai))
The jury’s recent decision to award $785,000 in damages to Zeiss underscores the complexities of patent litigation in the field of X-ray microscopy. While the jury found infringement, the determination that Sigray’s actions were not willful and the absence of lost profit damages highlight the nuanced considerations involved in such cases.
Both companies have yet to comment on the verdict. The outcome of the remanded PTAB proceedings and any potential appeals may further influence the resolution of this dispute.