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
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, January 17: Teva Files IRA Challenge Amid Second Round of Medicare Negotiations; Ninth Circuit Says Kinetic Sculptures Can Be Sufficiently ‘Fixed’ for Copyright; USPTO Publishes Inventorship FAQs for AI-Assisted Inventions
- USPTO Fee Report: Discounts Don’t Cut It for Incentivizing New Patent Participants
- Federal Circuit Splits on Whether Toddler Tub May Infringe
- CAFC Rules Patent Applications are Considered Pre-AIA Prior Art By Filing Date, Not Publication Date
- The Biden Administration Rolls the Dice on NIH Patent Licensing