United States Federal Circuit

Where plaintiff offered substantial evidence at trial that ultrasonic liposuction device was not a staple item suitable for substantial noninfringing use under 35 USC 271(c) and the record does not demonstrate that Lysonix 2000 has ever been used for anything other than the patented procedure, the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement for contributory and inducement of infringement.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/09/2001
• Published 04/09/2001

Judges

• LOURIE, Circuit Judge., Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Frank E. Scherkenbach,Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Menlo Park, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief were Robert E. Hillman, Fish & Richardson, of Boston, Massachusetts;  and Richard J. Anderson and John A. Dragseth, Fish & Richardson, of Minneapolis, Minnesota.


• For Appellees:
  
• Matthew D. Powers, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, of Menlo Park, California, argued for defendants-cross appellants.   With him on the brief were Steven S. Cherensky, Christopher J. Cox, and Nancy K. Raber.