United States Federal Circuit

Judgment for defendant in suit alleging breach of license agreement and patent infringement involving tennis rackets, is: 1) reversed in part, where for the fourteen marked rackets, the district court erred when it held that the defendant's marking was irrelevant because the fact that defendant marked their products with plaintiff's patent number is a fact which supports plaintiff's allegation that defendant's products fall within the patent claims, and this raises a genuine issue of material fact; 2) reversed in part, as to the 299 racket models, because defendant's history of paying royalties on the 299 racket models is circumstantial evidence that those models are Licensed Articles, and although the district court has the discretion to dismiss those models for being added too late, it was error to conclude that, as a matter of law, those models were not Licensed Articles; but 3) affirmed in part, where the district court did not err in the entry of judgment as a matter of law as to the five racket models contested at trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/15/2013
• Published 03/15/2013

Judges

• MOORE

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel