Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., et al. (Fed.Cir.)

June 18, 2004 on 8:44 am | In Caselaw |

Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., et al.
Federal Circuit, June 17, 2004
Before Newman, Schall and Linn, opinion by Linn
Holding:

Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in Civil Action No. 98 CV 1727, granting summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendant Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Maxim”) with respect to Linear’s U.S. Patent No. 5,481,178 (“the ’178 patent”). Maxim conditionally cross-appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment that Ronald Vinsant was not an inventor of the ’178 patent. Because the district court erred in construing the “circuit” and “circuitry,” “vary the duty cycle,” and “simultaneously off” claim limitations of the ’178 patent, we vacate the judgment of non-infringement and remand for further consideration. Because genuine issues of material fact have been raised concerning Maxim’s contributory infringement or inducement, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment of no contributory infringement or inducement of the current reversal method claims of the ’178 patent. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxim’s motion for summary judgment that Vinsant was a joint inventor of the ’178 patent, we affirm that decision.

Additional case quote:

Our precedent has established that “[a] claim limitation that actually uses the word ‘means’ will invoke a rebuttable presumption that § 112 6 applies. By contrast, a claim term that does not use ‘means’ will trigger the rebuttable presumption that § 112 6 does not apply.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted); see also Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703. Because none of the disputed limitations include the word “means,” the district court legally erred by failing to apply the rebuttable presumption that § 112 6 does not apply.

 Print This Post |  Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

• Nystrom v. Trex Company, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• TI Group Automotive Systems (North America), Inc. v. VDO North America, L.L.C., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Globetrotter Software, Inc., et al. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.)