Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.

Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

June 21, 2002, Decided

01-1372

Opinion

 [***1375]   [*1318]  LINN, Circuit Judge.

Ficosa North America Corporation, Fico Cables, S.A., and Ficosa North America S.A. de C.V. ("Ficosa") appeal the final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered in favor of Teleflex, Inc. ("Teleflex"). The district court entered judgment following a jury verdict that Ficosa infringed Teleflex's U.S. Patent No. 5,632,182 ("the '182 patent"), and that Teleflex's [**2]  U.S. Patent No. 4,581,953 ("the '953 patent") and the '182 patent were not invalid. Ficosa appeals the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") of non-infringement of claim 1 of the '182 patent, the grant of summary judgment of no best mode violation in the '182 patent, the denial of its JMOL motion of invalidity of the '182 patent, and the denial of its JMOL motion of invalidity of the '953 patent. Because the district court correctly granted summary judgment of no best mode violation and substantial evidence supports the jury verdict of infringement and validity, we affirm the district court's decision on appeal. [***1376]  

BACKGROUND

Teleflex is the assignee of the '182 patent and the '953 patent. The '182 patent is directed to a "Serviceable Clip Core Coupling," which is a component of a two-piece shift cable installed by General Motors ("GM") in certain sport utility vehicles. The two-piece shift cable connects the shift knob with the automatic transmission of the sport utility vehicle so that when a driver moves the shift knob, e.g., from "Park" to "Drive," the transmission is engaged. The two-piece cable allows GM to wait until an advanced stage of the manufacturing [**3]  process before putting the two pieces together and permits the cable to be taken apart later for servicing.

Claim 1 of the '182 patent recites:

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.

299 F.3d 1313 *; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 12361 **; 63 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1374 ***

TELEFLEX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FICOSA NORTH AMERICA CORP., FICO CABLES, S.A., and FICOSA NORTH AMERICA S.A. DE C.V., Defendants-Appellants.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  As Corrected. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 30, 2002, Reported at: 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19256.

Prior History: Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge John Corbett O'Meara.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

best mode, clip, invention, specification, patent, infringement, district court, argues, substantial evidence, inventor, embodiment, cable, core element, prior art, combine, invalidity, references, details, motivation, extending, thickness, male, summary judgment, anticipation, legs, pair, disclose, female member, practicing, locked

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Judicial Officers, Masters, General Overview, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Substantial Evidence, Sufficiency of Evidence, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Doctrine of Equivalents, Fact & Law Issues, Jurisdiction & Review, Claim Interpretation, Anticipation & Novelty, Elements, Scope of Claim, Substantial Evidence, Nonobviousness, Evidence, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, De Novo Review, Infringing Acts, Specifications, Enablement Requirement, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Claims & Specifications, Description Requirement, Invention Theory, Reissue Proceedings, Aids & Extrinsic Evidence, Filing Requirements, Drawings, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Appeals, Jury Trials, Jury Instructions, Invention Date & Priority, Best Mode, Required Disclosure, Adequate Disclosure, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Inequitable Conduct, Elements & Tests, Prior Art