1.2 volts, they are “self-erasing,” meaning that they return to a clear condition after removal or discontinuance of the current. The current may come from sensing devices which measure the amount of light impinging on the device. The current is applied to the solution by coating the surfaces of the glass with which it is in contact with transparent conducting material serving as electrodes. The parties to this suit are competitors in the manufacture and sale of the aforesaid variable reflectance mirrors and appurtenant to that competition there have been several other suits between them including one for infringement by Donnelly of the same ’799 patent charging other models of Donnelly mirrors, namely, Gentex Corp. v. Donnelly Corp., 27 USPQ2d 1714, 1993 WL 186560 (W.D.Mich.1993) (<HOLDING>). That suit involved mirror devices not
holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence holding invalid on preemption grounds state statute making agreements to arbitrate franchise claims unenforceable holding the 799 patent not invalid and not unenforceable and awarding gentex damages of two million dollars holding that covenant in settlement agreement whereby defendants agreed not to contest validity of patent was unenforceable because in direct conflict with strong federal policy holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages