United States Federal Circuit

In an infringement suit between two competitors in the consumer market for chewing gum, regarding two patents both of which generally claim chewing gum containing a combination of menthol and a non-menthol physiological coolants that provide a cooling sensation when chewed, the district court's grant of Wrigley's motion summary judgment of noninfringement and grant of Cadbury's motion for summary judgment of declaring a claim of Wrigley's patent invalid for obviousness and anticipation are affirmed where: 1) a combination of Wrigley's coolant and menthol did not infringe Cadbury's patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and 2) claim 34 of Wrigley's patent is invalid because it is a) anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,688,491 (Shahidi), and 2) obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,698,181 (Luo) and an article written by Dr. M. A. Parrish.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/22/2012
• Published 06/22/2012

Judges

• BRYSON

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel