United States Federal Circuit

In a patent infringement action involving eyewear, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying summary judgment on the invalidity of claim 22 as the claim satisfies both the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. sec. 112 and the mandate of claiming the same invention under 35 U.S.C. sec. 251; 2) district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on the infringement claim as defendant's product satisfies all the elements of claim 22 and thus literally infringed on the claim; 3) the court did not err in denying the post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur; and 4) court properly denied attorney fees based on willful infringement as there is no clear error in the court-s factual failure to find willful infringement and the resulting conclusion that this was not an exceptional case.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/29/2009
• Published 04/29/2009

Judges

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel