Wednesday, March 04, 2020

20/20 VISION CENTER loses appeal at CAFC

The outcome was affirmance:

Appellant 20/20 Vision Center, LLC (“20/20 Vision”)
sued Appellees Vision Precision Holdings, LLC, Stanton
Optical Florida, LLC, doing business as Stanton Optical &
My Eyelab, Thomas Campen MD & Associates, PLLC, and
M&D Optical Franchise, LLC (collectively, “Vision Precision”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (“District Court”), alleging, inter alia, infringement of claims 13, 14, 15, and 17 (“the Asserted Claims”) of
20/20 Vision’s U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062 (“the ’062 patent”). Following a claim construction hearing, the District
Court entered an order construing all disputed claim terms
in Vision Precision’s favor. See 20/20 Vision Ctr., LLC v.
Vision Precision Holdings, LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80670-RLR,
2018 WL 5807654, at *10–11 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2018). As a
result, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of final
judgment, which the District Court entered as a consent
judgment of non-infringement. J.A. 21–25 (Consent Judgment).
20/20 Vision appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.

Footnote 4:

20/20 Vision contends that the District Court also
erred by misconstruing the terms “eye-care practitioner,”
see Appellant’s Br. 30–42, and “audio response system,” see
id. at 42–51. However, based on parties’ concessions at oral
argument, we need not reach these issues. See Oral Arg.
at 17:07–38, (20/20 Vision agreeing that
affirmance on any one of the three terms at issue is “sufficient basis for affirming a judgment of non-infringement”
of the Asserted Claims); id. at 17:56–18:11 (Vision Precision stating that affirmance on any one claim construction
“be the end of the case”); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(<“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy,
and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); J.A. 23–24
(Consent Judgment) (providing that
the parties “stipulate and agree” that the District Court’s
construction of each claim term “served as a separate
ground” on which Vision Precision is “entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on the issue of non-infringement” of the
Asserted Claims).


Post a Comment

<< Home