United States Federal Circuit

Denial of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) regarding obviousness in a suit alleging direct, contributory, and induced infringement of plaintiff's dyeing patent is reversed where claims 1-4 of the patent would have been obvious to a practitioner of the correct level of ordinary skill. Because the claims were obvious, claims of anticipation and lack of enablement, as well as a request for a new trial, were not considered.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/03/2006
• Published 10/03/2006

Judges

• MICHEL, Chief Judge., Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, RADER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• William T. Enos, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Alexandria, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellee.   With him on the brief were Richard D. Kelly and Andrew K. Beverina., Neil C. Jones, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., of Greenville, SC, argued for defendants-appellants.