CAFC finds, in part, in favor of pro se patentee

The decision of noninfringement of WD Mich was vacated:We vacate the grant of summary judgmentof noninfringement and remand for further proceedings.While we are sympathetic to the fact that the districtcourt is handling a complex patent case involving a pro sepatent owner, the district court erred in granting summaryjudgment of noninfringement. In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that the AeroFlap doesnot contain three limitations of the RE’755 patent claims.First, the district court held the AeroFlap does not have theclaimed “vanes” because its channels are formed from depressions in the surface of its mud flap, rather than fromvanes that protrude from the surface. Second, it held thesedepressions in the AeroFlap do not prevent water and debris from passing through slotted openings. Third, to theextent the AeroFlap has the claimed “vanes,” “channels,”or “slotted openings,” it held they are not…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

Related news:

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply