"Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG) sued Opti-Luxx for allegedly infringing a design patent and a utility patent, which cover illuminated school bus signs. The district court ruled in favor of SMG on both patents, denied Opti-Luxx's motion for JMOL, and entered a permanent injunction against Opti-Luxx. Opti-Luxx appealed, challenging the district court's claim construction for the design patent and the finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalence for the utility patent."
"First, in reviewing the design patent's claim construction, the Federal Circuit stressed that when a design is claimed "as shown and described," as was the design patent at issue, the patent's scope is limited by both the drawings and the accompanying written description. Here, SMG's description stated that "oblique shading lines visible in the front and perspective views denote transparency." Despite this clear limitation, the district court broadened the meaning of "transparency" to also include "transluc"
Smartrend Manufacturing Group sued Opti-Luxx for alleged infringement of a design patent and a utility patent covering illuminated school bus signs. The district court ruled for Smartrend on both patents, denied Opti-Luxx's JMOL motion, and entered a permanent injunction. Opti-Luxx appealed the district court's design-patent claim construction and the doctrine-of-equivalents finding for the utility patent. The Federal Circuit held the district court improperly broadened the design patent's description of "transparency" to include translucency and vacated the design-patent infringement finding. The court also reversed the DOE judgment because the accused integrated frame did not perform the same functions as the claimed separate frame.
Read at Intellectual Property Law Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]