United States Federal Circuit

In an infringement action, the district court's finding that defendant did not infringe an adhesive film patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, is reversed where the claim construction was erroneous.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/02/2003
• Published 12/02/2003

Judges

• Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Frank P. Porcelli,Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Boston Massachusetts, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief were Frank E. Scherkenbach, Robert E. Hillman, Gregory A. Madera, and Kurt L. Glitzenstein;  and John C. Adkisson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Minneapolis, Minnesota.   Of counsel on the brief was Kevin H. Rhodes, 3M Innovative Properties Company, of St. Paul, Minnesota.


• For Appellees:
  
• Roderick G. Dorman, Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for defendant-appellee.   With him on the brief were Lawrence M. Hadley and Armand F. Ayazi.   Of counsel on the brief was Jay R. Campbell, Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar, of Cleveland, Ohio.