The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the decision of the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota denying attorney fees to Wright Medical Technology, Inc. Spineology, Inc. had alleged Wright’s X-REAM® expandable reamer product infringed several claims of its patent. The alleged infringement hinged on the claim construction of the term “body.” Initially, the district court declined to adopt either party’s construction of the term. On cross-motions for summary judgment, however, the court construed “body” consistent with Wright’s non-infringement position and granted Wright’s motion… When a court chooses not to adopt either party’s claim construction order, continued pursuit of the proposed claim construction does not necessitate a finding of an exceptional case. Further, a district court need not decide issues mooted by summary judgment to determine whether a case is exceptional.
The post Continuing to Pursue Claim Construction Arguments Does Not Make Case Exceptional appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- IPWatchdog Masters Panelists Urge U.S. Government to Get Organized When It Comes to AI
- Fixing the PTAB: 10 Things the USPTO Can Do to Improve the PTAB | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Fox Succeeds in Scrapping Machine Learning Claims at CAFC Under 101
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 18: CAFC Affirms Ineligibility of Machine Learning Claims; EPO’s Campinos Issues Opinion on Intervener Appeals; USPTO Ends Climate Change Mitigation Program
- In Latest Antitrust Blow for Google, Judge Finds Search Giant Monopolizes Certain Ad Tech Markets