Whitserve wins on infringement at CAFC over CPI
The jury verdict of infringement is affirmed with regard to the valid claims.
The jury verdict finding the ’007 patent to be not anticipated by the Schrader Patent is affirmed in part. The jury’s verdict regarding claim 10 of the ’007 is reversed because that claim is invalid as anticipated by the Schrader Patent.
The jury’s damages award is vacated and re-manded for a new trial.
The trial court’s holdings regarding WhitServe’s post-trial motions for a permanent injunction, compulsory license, prejudgment interest, en-hanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and a post-trial accounting are vacated and remanded.
The trial court’s denial of Whitmyer’s request for sanctions and fees is affirmed.
Judge Mayer dissented, beginning:
I respectfully dissent. There can be no infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,895,468, 6,049,801 and 6,182,078 (collectively the “WhitServe patents”) because they are invalid. The WhitServe patents are “barred at the threshold by [35 U.S.C.] § 101,” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981), because they are directed to the abstract idea that it is useful to provide people with reminders of approaching due dates and deadlines. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1303 (2012) (explaining that section 101 performs a vital “screening function”); Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010) (noting that whether claims are directed to statutory subject matter is a “threshold test”).