Extract
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., (2009)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1076 CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,v. ACUSHNET COMPANY,Defendant-Appellant.Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Thomas L. Halkowski, of Wilmington, Delaware.Henry C. Bunsow, Howrey LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph P. Lavelle and Kenneth W. Donnelly, of Washington, DC, and Richard L. Stanley, of Houston, Texas. Of counsel on the brief were Edward A. Pennington and Amanda M. Rettig, Hanify & King, PC, of Washington, DC.Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of DelawareJudge Sue L. RobinsonUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1076 CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY,v.ACUSHNET COMPANY,Defendant-Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case no. 06-CV-091, Judge Sue L. Robinson.DECIDED: August 14, 2009Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge.Callaway Golf Company ("Callaway") brought suit against Acushnet Company ("Acushnet"), alleging that Acushnet had infringed various claims of four golf ball patents owned by Callaway (known as the "Sullivan patents").1 Acushnet stipulated that its golf balls infringed, but contended that the asserted claims were invalid for anticipation and obviousness. After construing the claims, the district court granted summary judgment 1 The four Sullivan patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,210,293 ("'293 patent"), 6,503,156 ("'156 patent"), 6,506,130 ("'130 patent"), and 6,595,873 ("'873 patent"). At issue are claims 1, 4, and 5 of the '293 patent, claims 1-3 of the '156 patent, claim 5 of the '130 patent, and claims 1 and 3 of the '873 patent.Plaintiff-Appellee,of no anticipation. Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 523 F. Supp. 2d 388, 407 (D. Del. 2007) ("Summary Judgment Order"), vacated in part by 585 F. Supp. 2d 600 (D. Del. 2008) ("JMOL Order"). Following a trial on obviousness, the jury determined that- with the exception of dependent claim 5 of the '293 patent-none of the asserted claims was invalid. The district court entered final judgment concluding that dependent claim 5 of the '293 patent was invalid for obviousness, but that independent claim 4 (from which it stemmed), as well as the other seven asserted claims, were not.We conclude that Acushnet raised a genuine question of material fact concerning anticipation, and we reverse the district court's entry of summary judgment on that issue and remand. As to obviousnes...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
