In a patent infringement action involving systems for monitoring the flow of automobile traffic on thoroughfares, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant’s monitoring device does not practice the “defining traffic lanes” step of the disputed claim and therefore does not literally infringe plaintiff’s patent; and 2) plaintiff’s infringement by equivalents claim fails, as the manner in which defendant’s monitoring device defines lanes is much different than the patented invention.
Read Wavetronix v. EIS Electronic Integrated Sys., No. 08-1129
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Decided July 29, 2009
JudgesBefore NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and PATEL, District Judge. Opinion by PATEL, District Judge
CounselFor Plaintiff: Brent P. Lorimer, Workman Nydegger, Salt Lake City, Utah.
For Defendant: Richard D. Rochford, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, New York.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
