United States Federal Circuit

The district court erred in entering summary judgment that a machine was an available substitute for a patented invention at the time of infringement; thus, plaintiff may try to prove lost profits, and reasonable royalty determination is also vacated.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/29/2003
• Published 01/29/2003

Judges

• RADER, Circuit Judge., Before RADER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Gregory A. Castanias,Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were Lawrence D. Rosenberg and Kathleen M. Laubenstein.   Of counsel on the brief was John Mozola, Mullin Hoard & Brown, L.L.P., of Amarillo, TX. Of counsel was Richard P. Holme, Davis, Graham, of Denver, CO.


• For Appellees:
  
• Dennis J. Mondolino, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, of New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Michael F. Hurley and Jeffrey M. Gold. Of counsel on the brief was Jerold I. Schneider, Piper Rudnick LLP, of Washington, DC.