This is one of the early patent decisions of 2012 by CAFC, delivered on 01-03-2012. In this case CAFC affirmed the award of Attorney fees ($3,873,865.01) under Sec 285 upon finding the case as “Exceptional”. CAFC also affirmed the District Court’s construction of the word “bonded” in Patent Numbers – US 7,128,753 and US 7,217,290.
Merctec LLC holds two patents (Patents-in-suit) directed towards “Surgical Devices”. It sued Cordis and Johnson & Johnson collectively for Infringement. The District Court construed the word “bonded” by considering the statements made by the inventor during the Prosecution. The inventor specifically stated that “the bonding material as mentioned in the claims is meant to include a non-flowing, non-adherent and heat bondable material which is bonded to an implant by application of heat”. The district court construed the claims with reference to the Prosecution History and decided in favor of Johnson & Johnson for non-infringement. Upon finding non-infringement, the District Court also found the allegations put forth by the Plaintiff’s as baseless and non-persuasive and awarded $4 Million as attorney and expert fees. Specifically the District Court finding of Litigation Misconduct by Merctec LLC reveals that it:
1. Misrepresented both law and claim construction ultimately adopted by the court; and
2. Failed to meet minimal standard of reliability
The CAFC appreciated the finding of Litigation Misconduct by the District Court and affirmed the award of attorney fees.
No comments:
Post a Comment