CAFC finds district court error in claim construction in DESA IP case
Because of improper claim construction, the CAFC vacated a stipulated judgment of non-infringement in the non-precedential case Desa IP v. Mesa and Costco.
Although some blogs have emphasized the non-importance of non-precedential cases, IPBiz reminds readers that the CAFC decision in KSR v. Teleflex, now before the US Supreme Court, was a non-precedential decision.
The claim term at issue here was "sensor means."
The CAFC dutifully cited Cybor, Vitronics, and Phillips.
Assessing a "means" element, the CAFC cited Kemco v. Control, 208 F.3d 1352. Apex v. Raritan and Sage Products v. Devon were also cited. The CAFC determined that "sensor means" was in fact a means element.
Citing Phillips, the CAFC noted that expert testimony in conflict with instrinsic evididence should have been accorded NO weight.
There was an issue as to which sensor means performed motion detecting functions. DESA's argument prevailed.
Although some blogs have emphasized the non-importance of non-precedential cases, IPBiz reminds readers that the CAFC decision in KSR v. Teleflex, now before the US Supreme Court, was a non-precedential decision.
The claim term at issue here was "sensor means."
The CAFC dutifully cited Cybor, Vitronics, and Phillips.
Assessing a "means" element, the CAFC cited Kemco v. Control, 208 F.3d 1352. Apex v. Raritan and Sage Products v. Devon were also cited. The CAFC determined that "sensor means" was in fact a means element.
Citing Phillips, the CAFC noted that expert testimony in conflict with instrinsic evididence should have been accorded NO weight.
There was an issue as to which sensor means performed motion detecting functions. DESA's argument prevailed.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 3:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home