Posts Tagged ‘Claim Construction’
In Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. (2010 FC 361), the Federal Court (“FC”) held Easton Sports Canada Inc. (Easton) infringed, and induced others to infringe, plaintiff Bauer’s Canadian Patent No. 2302953 (“the ’953 patent”) claiming an improved skate having a one-piece quarter section. The FC found all skates manufactured by Easton using a claimed “F” pattern were infringing since these skates featured all of the essential elements claimed in the ’953 patent design. Continue Reading
In Comparer Corp. v. Antec, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the District Court’s claim construction but vacated the jury’s verdicts on obviousness as irreconcilably inconsistent, remanding the case for a new trial on invalidity. Comaper had brought suit against Antec alleging willful infringement of multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,955,955, a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer. The jury found willful infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 12, and 13, and that independent claims 1 and 12 were not invalid as obvious. However, the jury also found that dependent claims 2, 7, and 13 were obvious. Because the District Court did not grant a new trial based on the irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts the CAFC vacated the verdict and remanded. Continue Reading
In Kara Tech v. Stamps.com, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated the District Court’s judgment finding infringement based on a construction consistent with the claims’ plain language. While the specification repeatedly referenced an electronic encryption key, the claims contained no such limitation. The CAFC noted the claims, not the specification, define the invention, and refused to limit the invention on the basis of a term found only in the specification. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
