Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

October 3, 2006, Decided

06-1088

Opinion

 [***1643]   [*1357]  MICHEL, Chief Judge.

DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG ("DyStar") sued defendants C.H. Patrick Co. and Bann Quimica Ltda. (collectively, "Bann") in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging direct, contributory, and induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,586,992 ("the '992 patent"), 1 which discloses a process for dyeing textile materials with catalytically hydrogenated leuco indigo. DyStar and Bann Quimica Ltda. are large chemical manufacturers  [*1358]  that, inter alia, sell prereduced indigo for use in dyeing [**2]  processes; C.H. Patrick Co. purchased prereduced indigo solution from Bann Quimica Ltda. in 2002 and used it to dye yarn in a process alleged to infringe.

The parties agreed to a jury trial before a magistrate judge. Prior to charging the jury and in open court, the magistrate judge granted DyStar's motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") that it had not engaged in inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). The jury rendered a verdict that "Bann Quimica and/or C.H. Patrick" had infringed each of claims 1-4, assessed damages at $ 90,000, and declined to hold the '992 patent claims invalid for lack of enablement,  [**3]  anticipation or obviousness. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., Civ. No. 6:02-2946-WMC (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2005).

Following briefing, the magistrate judge denied Bann's motions for JMOL or, alternatively, a new trial on the question of invalidity of the '992 patent for anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement. Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh v. C. H. Patrick Co., Civ. No. 6:02-2946-WMC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43662 (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 2005). The magistrate judge did not issue an opinion. His order stated:

The jury diligently considered the evidence presented and found for the plaintiff. This court concludes that the jury's verdict was reasonable and was supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, as this court has great respect for trial by jury and the right of the parties to request a jury trial, this court will not substitute its findings for those of the jury as the jury's decision was clearly supported by the trial record and was reasonable.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

464 F.3d 1356 *; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 24642 **; 80 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1641 ***

DYSTAR TEXTILFARBEN GMBH & CO DEUTSCHLAND KG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C.H. PATRICK CO., and BANN QUIMICA LTDA, Defendants-Appellants.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 32267 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 4, 2006)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 551 U.S. 1113, 127 S. Ct. 2937, 168 L. Ed. 2d 262, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 7532 (U.S., June 11, 2007)

Prior History:  [**1]  Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, Jr.

DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43662 (D.S.C., Nov. 1, 2005)

Disposition: REVERSED.

CORE TERMS

indigo, prior art, patent, leuco, references, combine, dyeing, motivation, invention, skill, teaches, dyebath, catalytic, invalid, ordinary skill, hydrogenation, artisan, reduction, stabilize, dyer, textile, prereduced, dyehouses, ordinary person, common sense, non-obviousness, vat, common knowledge, hydrosulfite, chemistry

Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, General Overview, De Novo Review, Abuse of Discretion, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Ordinary Skill Standard, Prior Art, Civil Procedure, Appeals