Ineos loses at CAFC in appeal of adverse summary judgment decision
The technology involved compositions of polyethylene with certain additives. The legal issue was one of anticipation in the context of summary judgment.
A significant issue was whether testimony proferred by Ineos of range criticality was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to foreclose summary judgment. The CAFC found the testimony insufficient. This case is not burden shifting on the presumption of validity, but rather presenting evidence to show that there are disputed facts to preclude summary judgment.
The Ineos testimony did assert criticality of range, but apparently neither the district court nor the CAFC found that the testimony established disputed facts.
A separate issue related to the handling of behenamide.