Home » Patent Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Patent Law Summary
Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Technologies, Corp.
05-1546, 05-1579, 2007 WL 1138489, Fed.Cir.(Cal.), 04/18/2007
Holding
In directing the remand of the case for patent infringement involving magnetic braking system for amusement park rides, the Court of Appeals found that factual matters needed to be threshed out by the district court regarding the issue of whether or not the defendant’s brake system could have been manufactured in such a way that the conducting rail was attached to the track.
Detailed Summary
Plaintiff (patent holder) initiated a patent infringement suit against defendant, and upon motion for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of the latter by rendering a judgment of non-infringement. The district court sustained the defendant’s argument that its brakes did not infringe plaintiff’s patent because its (defendant’s) product did not include an “intermediary,” because it was not “attached to the fixed device part,” and because it did not include a “conductive rail” “adapted to extend the length of the fixed device part.” The appellate court however found that the term “intermediary” can embrace magnetic substances, albeit only if the additional term requirement of “alternating polarity” allows for it. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court’s construction of this term. The case was remanded to the lower court in order for the latter to determine whether the patent limits the term “adjacent magnets of alternating polarity” to magnets of opposite polarity. With the understanding that an “intermediary” may be magnetic, the trial court was asked to review its finding of non-infringement. There are factual matters that needed to be resolved by the trial court, such as the issue of whether the brake system of defendant could be designed in a way that the conducting rail was attached to the tracks. The resolution of these contentious issues should preclude the issuance of a summary judgment on the claim of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The appellate court therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment of non-infringement, and directed it to resolve the factual issues deemed contentious by the parties.
Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
