United States Federal Circuit

In patent dispute involving a patent directed to an orthodontic bracket, decisions denying defendant's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a post-jury verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law are affirmed as: 1) a case or controversy existed within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act; and 2) substantial evidence existed in the record supporting a verdict that the asserted claims of the patent at issue were invalid based on a public use or sale under 35 U.S.C. section 102(b).

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/19/2007
• Published 09/19/2007

Judges

• LOURIE, Circuit Judge., Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE, Circuit Judge, and ROBERTSON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John P. Fredrickson, Boyle Fredrickson Newholm Stein & Gratz, S.C., of New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-cross appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Thomas S. Reynolds II, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, of Milwaukee, WI, argued for defendant-appellant.   With him on the brief was Timothy M. Hansen.