Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division
June 22, 2007, Decided; June 22, 2007, Filed
Civil Action No. 2:06cv289
[*575] OPINION & ORDER
This case concerns two patents related to paper shredders, U.S. Patent No. 6,260,780 (the "'780 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,040,559 (the "'559 patent"). A jury trial was held before this Court from May 1, 2007, to May 14, 2007, on Plaintiff Fellowes, Inc.'s ("Fellowes'") claims that Defendants Michilin Prosperity Company, Ltd. ("Michilin"), and Intek America, Inc., ("Intek") (collectively "Defendants") infringed the '559 and '780 patents. Defendants counterclaimed that both patents were invalid because they were anticipated and obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and contended that they did not "sell" or "offer to sell" the allegedly infringing products "within the United States," or "import" them "into the United States." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Defendants admitted infringement of the '559 patent, if it was valid, and denied [**3] infringement of the '780 patent. On May 18, 2007, the jury returned a verdict finding that Defendants did not prove that the '559 and '780 patents were anticipated or obvious. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to whether Defendants infringed the '780 patent. 1 Following the verdict, the parties renewed their motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 and 50(b) for summary judgment, or judgment as a matter of law, on Fellowes' claim that the '780 patent was infringed. Defendants also moved for judgment as a matter of law that the '780 and '559 patents were invalid and, in the alternative, for a new trial. For the reasons stated herein, the Court FINDS, as a matter of law, that Defendants directly infringed claim 3 of the '780 patent, and claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 of the '559 patent, and induced infringement of both patents. The Court further FINDS, in accordance with the jury verdict, that U.S. Patent No. 6,260,780 and U.S. Patent No. 7,040,559 are both valid patents.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
491 F. Supp. 2d 571 *; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45545 **
FELLOWES, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICHILIN PROSPERITY COMPANY, LTD. and INTEK AMERICA, INC., Defendants.
Prior History: Fellowes, Inc. v. Michilin Prosperity Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90648 (E.D. Va., Dec. 15, 2006)
shredders, infringement, spacer, cutting, retailers, patents, import, disks, offer to sell, Diamond, matter of law, induced, sales, cylinder, negotiated, customers, notch, surface, space, invention, products, consists, cross-section, manufacture, adjacent, parties, percent, switch, sells, peripheral
Civil Procedure, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Postverdict Judgment, Preverdict Judgment, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Infringing Acts, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Types of Commercial Transactions, Sales of Goods, Contracts Law, Contract Formation, Offers, Offers to Sell & Sales, Title, Creditors & Good Faith Purchasers, Passing of Titles, Readjustments, Formation, Acceptances & Offers, Firm Offers, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, International Trade Law, International Commerce & Trade, Exports & Imports, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Claim Interpretation, Doctrine of Equivalents, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Elements, Specifications, Description Requirement, Definiteness, Scope of Claim, Subject Matter, Indirect Infringement, Evidence, Admissibility, Circumstantial & Direct Evidence, Intent & Knowledge