Linear Technology v. Impala Linear and Maxim Integrated (Fed. Cir. 2004)
After losing an appeal last month, Maxim filed a request for an en banc rehearing. Although the court denied the petition to rehear, it did issue a substitute opinion in the case.
Summary:
Because genuine issues of material fact have been raised concerning Maxim’s contributory infringement or inducement, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment of no contributory infringement or inducement of the current reversal method claims of the ’178 patent. Because Maxim failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact, the matter of inventorship was amenable to determination on summary judgment on the undisputed factual premises. On these premises, the district court correctly held that Vinsant was not a joint inventor of the ’178 patent.
As in the prior opinion,the court found error in the district court’s claim construction. Vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded.
Read the original federal circuit opinion.