"On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a nonprecedential ruling in Orange Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd. reversing the Eastern District of Texas' denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to defendant Autel. The Federal Circuit did not reach Orange's appeal of Eastern Texas' JMOL ruling of noninfringement after finding that Autel's asserted prior art met every limitation of the asserted claims, leading the appellate court to overturn the district court on obviousness"
"In June 2021, Orange sued Autel alleging that tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) setting mechanisms sold by Autel to its U.S. subsidiary infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 8031064, Tire Pressure Detecting Apparatus and Tire Pressure Detector Identification Copying Method for the Same. The '064 patent is directed to a tire pressure detecting apparatus capable of copying the identification of a failed tire pressure detector for easy replacement."
The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential ruling reversing the Eastern District of Texas' denial of JMOL to Autel on obviousness, concluding Autel's asserted prior art met every limitation of the asserted claims. The CAFC did not resolve Orange's appeal of the district court's JMOL noninfringement ruling regarding sales or importation. The dispute began in June 2021 over U.S. Patent No. 8,031,064, which claims a tire pressure detecting apparatus that can copy a failed detector's identification for replacement. A jury found infringement of claims 26 and 27, and the district court had granted JMOL on noninfringement for lack of U.S. sales or importation. The CAFC reviewed only Section 103 obviousness, citing Nihei and Nantz as prior art.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]