CAFC finds that CD Cal failed to provide a “full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues.”

The opinion beginsDefendant Zinus, Inc., appeals from a summaryjudgment entered in favor of plaintiff Cap Export, LLC,and third-party defendants Abraham Amouyal and4Moda Corp. (collectively, “Cap Export”) by the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California.The district court ordered Zinus, the owner of U.S. PatentNo. 8,931,123 (“the ’123 patent”), to file a motion forsummary judgment of validity of that patent. Followingbriefing, the court held two of the asserted claims ofZinus’s patent invalid for obviousness. The court thendismissed all of Zinus’s counterclaims with prejudice. Wevacate the district court’s summary judgment and remandfor further proceedings.Of the issues leading to decision to vacate:On appeal, Zinus raises a number of objections to thedistrict court’s summary judgment ruling. Three ofZinus’s arguments are persuasive.First, the district court improperly granted summaryjudgment…

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