For Your Data Cybor Corp. V. Fas Technologies, Inc. Representative Brief
April 26, 2020
Edit
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. case brief summary
138 F.3d 1448 (1998)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff brought adjust against defendants for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of defendants' patent. The devices inwards enquiry were used to dispense small-scale volumes of liquid onto semiconductor wafers.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At trial, a jury flora that plaintiff literally infringed defendants' patent. The trial courtroom denied plaintiff's motion for judgment every bit a affair of police pull too defendants' motion for an special example accolade of attorney's fees. Both parties appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the orders of denial because the trial courtroom properly instructed the jury every bit to whether plaintiff's device was structurally too functionally equivalent to defendants'; since prove of plaintiff's willfulness was weak, the example was non special nether the patent law.
Suggested Study Aids too Books
138 F.3d 1448 (1998)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The parties sought review of the orders of the US of America District Court for the Northern District of California which denied plaintiff's motion for judgment every bit a affair of police pull on its non-infringement claims too defendants' motion for an special example accolade under 35 U.S.C.S. § 285.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff brought adjust against defendants for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of defendants' patent. The devices inwards enquiry were used to dispense small-scale volumes of liquid onto semiconductor wafers.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At trial, a jury flora that plaintiff literally infringed defendants' patent. The trial courtroom denied plaintiff's motion for judgment every bit a affair of police pull too defendants' motion for an special example accolade of attorney's fees. Both parties appealed.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom reviewed the result of claim structure de novo.
- The courtroom determined that the trial courtroom properly narrowed the reach of the claim linguistic communication too instructed the jury to hit upwardly one's hear whether plaintiff's device was structurally too functionally equivalent to defendants'.
- The courtroom determined that the example was non special because the prove of willful infringement was weak too plaintiff acted inwards practiced faith.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the orders of denial because the trial courtroom properly instructed the jury every bit to whether plaintiff's device was structurally too functionally equivalent to defendants'; since prove of plaintiff's willfulness was weak, the example was non special nether the patent law.
Suggested Study Aids too Books