Sulzer Textil A.G., et al. v. Picanol N.V.
February 17, 2004
Federal Circuit
The Order (copy).
Picanol filed a petition for panel rehearing. Picanol’s petition for panel rehearing was granted for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of waiver of resort by Sulzer to the doctrine of equivalents. The previous opinion of the court in this appeal, issued on December 9, 2003, and reported at 351 F.3d 1120, was withdrawn. A new opinion (below) accompanied the order. In all other respects, the Petition for Panel Rehearing was denied.
The New Opinion (copy).
Sulzer appealed a District Court order denying their motion for a new trial based on erroneous jury instructions, following a jury verdict in favor of Picanol. Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., No. 6:00cv279 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2002). Sulzer also appealed an order of the district court granting Picanol’s motion in limine to preclude Sulzer from introducing evidence pertaining to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. On cross-appeal, Picanol appealed an order of the district court denying its motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Holding.
Jury instructions. The court concluded that the district court erred (“it is the duty of trial courts in such cases to inform jurors both of the court’s claim construction rulings on all disputed claim terms and of the jury’s obligation to adopt and apply the court’s determined meanings of disputed claim terms in the jury’s deliberations of the facts…”), but because Sulzer failed to show prejudice resulting from the error…Affirmed.
Motion in limine. The court found that the record raised questions on Sulzer’s possible waiver that can only be answered by the district court on remand. Vacated and remanded.
Attorneys’ fees. The court found that the district court applied the appropriate legal standard in determining the case was not exceptional and did not clearly err in its factual findings supporting that determination. Affirmed.
Related posts:
