Inline Plastics Corp. (“Inline”) filed a lawsuit against Lacerta Group, LLC (“Lacerta”), alleging infringement of several patents related to tamper-resistant containers and methods of making such containers using thermoformed plastic. The district court granted Inline summary judgment of infringement on a subset of claims, but the jury found that the remaining asserted claims were not infringed and that all the asserted claims (including those already held infringed) were invalid. The parties then filed posttrial motions, including Inline’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and Lacerta’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, both of which were denied. Inline appealed on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of no invalidity and that an error in the jury instructions with respect to the law of obviousness requires a new trial. Lacerta cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and the without prejudice dismissal of certain patent claims Inline voluntarily withdrew during trial.
About
Zachary “Zack” Alper is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's San Diego (Del Mar) office.
Latest Post
More Posts
Conclusory Assertions Won’t Cut It: Federal Circuit Provides Further Insight into the Motivation to Combine Analysis
The Importance of Reasonable Particularity in a Doctrine of Equivalents Argument
The Intertwining Nature of Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success
SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., No. 22-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023)
OneSubsea IP UK Ltd. v. FMC Tech., Inc., No. 22-1099 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2023)
Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC No. 21-2320 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023)
About
Zachary “Zack” Alper is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's San Diego (Del Mar) office.