Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp.

43 Citing cases

  1. Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories

    849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 381 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the grant of a preliminary injunction was based on more than an unwarranted presumption of irreparable harm where the district court found the patentee would suffer lost market position and obstructed business relationships in the market

    See Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., 744 F.2d 1564, 1574-75, 223 USPQ 465, 471 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although Ninth Circuit law is controlling, we looked to Under Sea Indus., Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 4 USPQ2d 1772 (Fed. Cir. 1987), for guidance in the resolution of this issue.See Donovan v. Mazzola, 761 F.2d 1411, 1414 (9th Cir. 1985).

  2. Medtronic Inc. v. Bos. Scientific Corp.

    695 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The district court held a bench trial on January 25–28, 2010, and March 13, 2010. The court relied on Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed.Cir.1987), which states that “[t]he burden always is on the patentee to show infringement,” and thus held that “[a]s the parties asserting infringement, defendants bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” Opinion at 766.

  3. Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

    2011-1313, -1372 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 18, 2012)

    The district court held a bench trial on January 25-28, 2010, and March 13, 2010. The court relied on Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987), which states that "[t]he burden always is on the patentee to show infringement," and thus held that "[a]s the parties asserting infringement, defendants bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence." Opinion at 17.

  4. Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

    571 U.S. 191 (2014)   Cited 325 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in a patent infringement declaratory judgment action filed by an alleged infringer, the defendant patent holder bears the burden of proving infringement

    But it nonetheless believed that Mirowski, “[a]s the part[y] asserting infringement,” bore the burden of proving infringement. Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 777 F. Supp. 2d 750, 766 (Del. 2011); see Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F. 2d 1551, 1557 (CA Fed. 1987) (“The burden always is on the patentee to show infringement”). After a bench trial, the court found that Mirowski had not proved infringement, either directly or under the doctrine of equivalents.

  5. Schinzing v. Mid-States Stainless, Inc.

    415 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2005)   Cited 23 times
    Applying Polymer Indus.

    To sustain a claim of inequitable conduct, the alleged infringer must show by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the nondisclosed information would have been material to the patent examiner, and (2) the nondisclosure was intentional. Under Sea Indus., Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1987). These two elements must be balanced against each other, and if one is particularly strong, a lesser degree of the other may suffice to show inequitable conduct.

  6. Nextec Applications v. Brookwood Companies, Inc.

    703 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 16 times
    Finding motion for summary judgment premature where the facts suggested it might be possible to meet the Government's specification without infringing the patents

    Whereas claim construction is a question of law, the determination whether infringement has occurred is a question of fact, with the burden of proof on the patentee to show infringement. See Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. SpectraMed, Inc., 49 F.3d 1575, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Under Sea Indus., Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Infringement occurs when a properly construed claim "reads on" the accused product.

  7. Glenayre Electronics v. Jackson

    Case No. 02 CV 0256 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2003)

    Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As the patent owner, Jackson bears the burden of proving infringement. Under Sea Indus., Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("The burden always is on the patentee to show infringement."). As noted at the outset of this opinion, the `900 patent describes a system made up of hard-wired, digital logic circuit elements.

  8. Quantachrome v. Micromeritics Instrument

    37 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, in a patent case, the owner of the patent always has the burden to prove infringement. Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1987). However, if a party challenges a patent's validity, that party has the burden to show invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

  9. Zeller Plastik, Koehn, Grabner & Co. v. Joyce Molding Corp.

    698 F. Supp. 1204 (D.N.J. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    Hence, in this case, plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant engaged in conduct which infringes upon plaintiff's patent. Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed Cir. 1987); Uniroyal, Inc., v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In response to this contention, defendant Joyce asserts that plaintiff has no protectible interest since the patent is invalid as it is anticipated by the prior art and obvious.

  10. Streamfeeder v. Sure-Feed Systems, Inc.

    175 F.3d 974 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 47 times
    In Streamfeeder, after we rejected the patentee's hypothetical claim for impermissibly narrowing the patent claim in one respect while also broadening it in another, we additionally explained why a proper hypothetical claim in that case—one without the narrowing limitation—was unpatentable over the prior art.

    Streamfeeder's reliance on National Presto is misplaced, however, because while the burden of going forward rests with the accused infringer, the burden of persuasion that the hypothetical claim does not ensnare the prior art remains with the patentee: In this context it is important to remember that the burden is on Wilson [the patentee] to prove that the range of equivalents which it seeks would not ensnare the prior art. . . . The patent owner has always borne the burden of proving infringement, see Under Sea Indus., Inc. v. Dacor Corp., 833 F.2d 1551, 1557, 4 USPQ2d 1772, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and there is no logical reason why that burden should shift to the accused infringer simply because infringement in this context might require inquiry into the patentability of a hypothetical claim. Any other approach would ignore the realities of what happens in the PTO and violate established patent law.