Unitronics v. Gharb

In the non-precedential Unitronics case, the CAFC vaporized pro se inventor Gharb on the law:

Gharb’s belief, however, is premised on an incorrect understanding of the law. “The words of the claims define the scope of the patented invention.” Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A Unitronics device is not infringing “unless it contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” Freedman Seating Co.
v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Oddly, however, Gharb beat Unitronics' lawyers on a procedural issue, in which the lawyers tried to defeat CAFC jurisdiction.

Consequently, Gharb’s time to file an appeal did not begin to run
until after the district court disposed of his motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2008.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(a)(vi). Gharb’s notice of appeal was, if anything, premature
rather than untimely, and by rule it ripened on the date that the district court disposed of
his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Gharb’s appeal is
therefore timely, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

IPBiz wonders if this argument would work in NJ state courts, wherein motions for reconsideration
are frequently ignored.