CAFC gives mixed decision in the Kaneka case
In the case KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY GROUP , one has a Japanese company suing a Chinese company; the outcome is mixed:
Kaneka Corporation sued Defendants Xiamen King-
domway Group Company, Pacific Rainbow International
Inc., and Shenzhou Biology and Technology Co., Ltd., in
the Central District of California, alleging infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 7,910,340 (the ’340 Patent).
The district court granted summary judgment
of noninfringement based on the
district court’s claim construction.
Kaneka appealed .
For the reasons that follow,
we affirm - in-part, vacate - in-part, and remand
The subject matter relates to Coenzyme Q10 which exists
in animal cells. Cells use coen-
zyme Q10 to produce adenosine triphosphate, which aids
Of some interest,
Defendants argue that because the patentee did not
define the term “sealed,” the term must have one plain
and ordinary meaning that governs.
We disagree. An adjective such as “sealed”
may have more than one plain
and ordinary meaning.
See, e.g. , O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.
, 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a term may
have more than