Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. Inc. v. Faytex Corp. case brief
summary
970 F.2d 834 (1992)
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the infringement rulings; one manufacturer's process included all claim limitations, thus, infringing the patent; the second manufacturer utilized a different process to create his product, so there was no infringement of the product-by-process claim. The court vacated the ruling on the validity of the patent, and remanded for a proper on-sale analysis. The damage award was vacated for recalculation of lost profits.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
970 F.2d 834 (1992)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed an order of the United States District Court
for District of Massachusetts, holding that defendant was not liable
for patent infringement in distributing a patented product
manufactured by a different process. Defendant appealed the finding
that plaintiff's patent not invalidated by 35 U.S.C.S. §102(b).
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff owned a patent containing both process and
product-by-process claims for a shock absorbing shoe innersole made
from an elastomeric material and polyurethane foam. Defendant
distributed half-sole innersoles, or heel cups, with elastomeric heel
inserts manufactured by two different manufacturers using two
different processes. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringing the
patented process. The district court held that the process infringed
the product-by-process claim of one of the manufacturers only. The
patent was not invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C.S. §
102(b). Plaintiff was awarded lost profits. The appeal followed. DISCUSSION
- The court vacated and remanded the judgment on validity of the patent for proper on-sale analysis. The court affirmed the judgment for infringement.
- The process of one manufacturer infringed plaintiff's patent, as the process contained all the claim limitations.
- The second manufacturer used a different process to achieve an albeit indistinguishable product, thus, there was no infringement of product-by-process claim.
- The damage award was vacated.
- Due to an error in calculating lost profits, a market share approach should have been utilized.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the infringement rulings; one manufacturer's process included all claim limitations, thus, infringing the patent; the second manufacturer utilized a different process to create his product, so there was no infringement of the product-by-process claim. The court vacated the ruling on the validity of the patent, and remanded for a proper on-sale analysis. The damage award was vacated for recalculation of lost profits.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment