February 24, 2021
Authored and Edited by Elliott T. LaParne; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Esther H. Lim
In John Bean Tech. Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc., Nos. 2020-1090, 2020-1148 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting-in-part Morris’s motion for summary judgment as to equitable intervening rights.
In 2003, Morris sent John Bean a letter explaining its belief that U.S. Patent No. 6,397,622 was invalid and provided prior art. After receiving no response from John Bean, Morris began practicing the claimed invention. John Bean took no action until eleven years later when it sought ex parte reexamination of the ’622 patent. Through ex parte reexamination, John Bean amended two claims and added six additional claims. After the reexamination certificate issued in 2014, John Bean sued Morris for infringement. Morris filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that John Bean’s claim was barred due to equitable intervening rights. After analyzing six equitable intervening rights factors, the district court concluded that Morris was entitled to equitable intervening rights.
On appeal, John Bean argued that the district court did not give sufficient weight to the fact that Morris had already recouped its investment. The Federal Circuit rejected John Morris’s argument, explaining that monetary investments are not the only relevant investments and that recoupment of monetary investments does not preclude the grant of equitable intervening rights. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting-in-part Morris’s summary judgment motion for equitable intervening rights.
ex parte reexamination, summary judgment, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.