Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Mustek Systems, Inc. and Mustek, Inc. appealed a judgment of literal infringement concerning claims of the '878 patent held by Hewlett-Packard Co. Hewlett-Packard cross-appealed on the invalidity of the '635 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The '878 patent involves technology for variable speed scanning, while the '635 patent describes a two-step scanning process. The jury originally found Mustek liable for literal infringement on certain claims, awarding Hewlett-Packard damages, but upheld the invalidity of claim 1 of the '635 patent based on prior art. The district court granted JMOL for some claims under the doctrine of equivalents but later corrected its stance, invalidating certain claims of the '878 patent. On appeal, the court vacated the infringement judgment for the '878 patent, affirming the invalidity of the '635 patent's claim 1. The appeal focused on whether Mustek's devices met the literal infringement criteria, particularly the 'scan speed selector' requirement, which they did not, leading to a JMOL in Mustek's favor. The court also addressed the improper grant of JMOL under the doctrine of equivalents and upheld the jury's findings of anticipation and obviousness regarding the '635 patent. The decision reinstated the jury's damage calculations and denied further motions for retrial or costs, concluding that the jury's verdicts were based on substantial evidence.
Legal Issues Addressed
Doctrine of Equivalentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite a lack of evidence supporting literal infringement, the district court's grant of JMOL for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was deemed improper, as no timely motion for JMOL based on the doctrine of equivalents had been filed.
Reasoning: The court determined that a Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was appropriate, despite a lack of evidence supporting literal infringement.
Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the jury's finding that claim 1 of the '635 patent was anticipated by prior art, supported by substantial evidence regarding the disclosure of specific scanning steps.
Reasoning: The jury found that claim 1 of the '635 patent was anticipated by Cawkell, and there is substantial evidence backing this conclusion from the district court.
Jury Verdict on Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's finding of insufficient evidence to support the lost profits award was overturned, as the jury was capable of calculating damages using provided exhibits and instructions.
Reasoning: The district court found insufficient evidence to support the lost profits award, primarily due to the exclusion of testimony from Hewlett-Packard's damages expert concerning the award amount if only one patent was deemed infringed.
Literal Infringementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court vacated the jury's finding of literal infringement on specific claims of the '878 patent due to lack of substantial evidence that the accused devices included a 'scan speed selector' as required by the jury instruction.
Reasoning: The jury's verdict in this case was found to be contrary to undisputed facts and unsupported by substantial evidence, as the accused devices did not include a 'scan speed selector' as required by the jury instruction.
Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury's verdict of obviousness for claims 2-8 of the '635 patent, based on substantial evidence presented regarding the Mustek scanner and prior art practices.
Reasoning: The jury's verdicts on the factual basis for obviousness are upheld by substantial evidence, and the legal conclusion of obviousness regarding claims 2-8 of the '635 patent is affirmed.