United States Federal Circuit

An "orthotic device" must be defined as a removable insert or immovable insert portion of a shoe. Summary judgment for defendants of non-infringement of a patent involving an orthotic device is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that a subsidiary limitation of a claim was not met.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/15/2006
• Published 03/15/2006

Judges

• MICHEL, Chief Judge., Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, GAJARSA and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Charles R. Wolfe, Jr., Blank Rome LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.   With him on the brief were Brian William Higgins, of Washington, DC;  Grant S. Palmer and Todd A. Schoenhaus, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mitchell G. Stockwell, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for defendants-appellees.   With him on the brief were Vaibhav P. Kadaba and Pamela C. Mallari.