• Mar 29 2019
  • |
  • Category: CAFC Updates

Following a jury trial finding Sealant Systems liable to TEK for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,789,110 directed to an emergency kit for repairing vehicle tires deflated by puncture, SSI appeals several pre- and post-judgment orders from the District Court. Specifically, SSI appeals the district court’s claim construction order and its orders denying SSI’s motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on invalidity, non-infringement, and damages. SSI also challenges the district court’s permanent injunction. In a previous appeal, the CAFC reversed the district court’s construction of the “cooperating with” limitation and its subsequent invalidity determination, and remanded the case back to the district court because SSI had not had an opportunity to make a case for invalidity in light of the CAFC’s claim construction. This time around, the CAFC finds that the district court improperly restricted SSI’s efforts to present the jury with relevant evidence of invalidity. Specifically, the CAFC finds that the district court should not have barred SSI from presenting to the jury obviousness theories based on the combination of the prior art (Eriksen and Bridgestone) that were not previously before the CAFC. Thus, the CAFC vacates the court’s final judgment as to validity, reverses the court’s denial of SSI’s motion for partial new trial on validity and directs the district court to grant SSI a new trial limited to determining the issue of validity on an appropriate evidentiary record. In the interest of judicial economy, the CAFC also affirms the remaining issues on appeal in the event the ’110 patent is found not invalid following the new trial.

View Decision