United States Federal Circuit

In three related actions alleging infringement of two patents describing high-performance liquid chromatography columns, jury verdict of infringement in one action, summary judgment for plaintiff in a second action, and summary judgment of noninfringement in the third action are affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the district court properly construed the term "rigid" and properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law; 2) there was no clear error in the conclusion that defendant failed to prove the deceptive intent necessary to sustain its claim of inequitable conduct; 3) there was error in the entry of judgment as a matter of law on anticipation without submitting the issue to the jury; 4) under the correct construction of "greater than about 30 micrometers," defendant was not entitled to summary judgment of no literal infringement; 5) defendant was entitled to summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 6) judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits required remand and reconsideration; 7) defendant's infringement was not willful; and 8) the matter would not be reassigned to a different district court judge on remand, despite lengthy delays in prior rulings.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/07/2008
• Published 10/07/2008

Judges

• Before MAYER, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert H. Stier, Jr., Pierce Atwood LLP, of Portland, ME, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were Michael J. Sullivan and Sean L. Sweeney.


• For Appellees:
  
• William A. Scofield, Jr., Lahive & Cockfield, LLP, of Boston, MA, argued for defendant-cross appellant.   With him on the brief was Sibley P. Reppert.