United States Federal Circuit

In an infringement suit over two patents relating to the separation of synchronization signals from video signals, rulings on validity, infringement, and inequitable conduct are affirmed where: 1) on an invalidity claim, the burden of production was properly shifted to plaintiff to show evidence that the asserted claim was entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art, and an earlier patent did not provide adequate written description support showing that the inventor was in possession of the invention claimed in the later patent; 2) there was no clear error in a finding of infringement of one of the disputed claims; 3) another claim was not invalid for indefiniteness; and 4) the inventor did not commit inequitable conduct by failing to disclose certain prior art.

Appellate Information

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

Judges

• PLAGER, Circuit Judge., Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Timothy J. Vezeau, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, of Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant.   With him on the brief were Michael A. Dorfman, Rachel M. Vorbeck, and James A. Gromada, of Washington, DC.


• For Appellees:
  
• J. Donald McCarthy, Duane Morris LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for defendant-cross appellant.   With him on the brief were Todd R. Miller, Jones Day, of Los Angeles, CA, and Gregory A. Castanias, of Washington, DC.