In a patent infringement action involving golf balls, district court judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the court did not err in its claim construction regarding the golf ball covers; 2) the court did not err in concluding that substantial evidence supports the verdict that defendant failed to prove invalidity due to obviousness; 3) the court did not err in excluding the test-ball testimony on the issue of obviousness, and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of a parallel inter partes re-examination of the patents proceeding before the Patent and Trademark Office; 4) the verdict form returned by the jury reflects an irreconcilable inconsistency and thus a new trial on obviousness must be granted; and 5) the court erred in granting summary judgment that the claims were not anticipated, as the Nesbitt golf ball patent incorporates by reference the potential cover layer materials described in an earlier patent, and thus defendant has raised a genuine question of material fact concerning anticipation.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Decided August 14, 2009
Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by DYK, Circuit Judge.