The Federal Circuit decided two patent infringement cases yesterday. The first case involved a patent for a memorabilia card and the second case involved a patent directed to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer.
In Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., No. 09-1248, the court faced a challenge to the jury's finding that the defendant had willfully infringed certain of plaintiff's patented claims, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, but that certain dependent claims were obvious.
The court rejected defendant's claim that it was entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in construing certain terms of the patent. However, with respect to defendant's contention that a new trial is required because of inconsistent jury verdicts on obviousness, the court agreed with the defendant that, under the circumstances of the case, the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial on invalidity as the jury's verdicts on obviousness reflect an irreconcilable inconsistency.
In Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co., No. 09-1022, the court faced a challenge to district court's conclusion that plaintiff's patents related to memorabilia cards are invalid for obviousness.
In affirming the decision, the court held that defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sport-related item instead of some other items attached in the prior art references. The court also rejected plaintiff's argument for long felt but unresolved need and failure of others, initial skepticism, commercial success, unexpected results, and industry recognition as secondary objective evidence.
- Full Text of Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.
- Full text of Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co