United States Federal Circuit

In a patent dispute concerning automatic bar code technology, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant's patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/09/2005
• Published 09/09/2005

Judges

• LOURIE, Circuit Judge., Before MAYER, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• George M. Sirilla, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, of McLean, Virginia, for amicus curiae National Retail Federation.   With him on the brief was Raymond L. Sweigart., Harold C. Wegner, Foley & Lardner LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. With him on the brief were Stephen B. Maebius, George C. Best, Rouget F. Henschel, and Sean A. Passino., Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts, for amici curiae Cypress Semiconductor Corp., LSI Logic Corp., Micrel, Inc., and Linear Technology Corp. With him on the brief were Katherine Kelly Lutton, John A. Dragseth, and Christian A. Chu., Jonathan M. James, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A., of Phoenix, Arizona, for amicus curiae Intel Corporation.   With him on the brief were C. Randall Bain and Dan L. Bagatell.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jesse J. Jenner, Ropes & Gray LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiffs-appellees.   With him on the brief were Charles Quinn, Krista M. Rycroft, Kenneth B. Herman, William J. McCabe, and Pablo D. Hendler., Richard G. Taranto, Farr & Taranto, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant.   With him on the brief was Victoria Gruver Curtin, of Scottsdale, Arizona.   Of counsel on the brief Gerald D. Hosier, of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Louis J. Hoffman, of Scottsdale, Arizona.