Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | PERKIN-ELMER,No. 80-4087,80-4087 |
| Citation | 680 F.2d 669,216 USPQ 760 |
| Parties | TheCORPORATION, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert M. Taylor, Jr., Lyon & Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Richard J. Birch, Thompson, Birch, Gauthier & Samuels, Boston, Mass., argued, for appellee; Carl Hoppe, Eckhoff, Hoppe, Slick, Mitchell & Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before SKELTON, * Court of Claims Judge, and GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
Perkin-Elmer appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict finding its patents valid but not infringed.
Perkin-Elmer and Computervision sell projection printers, the Micralign and the Cobilt CA-3000, respectively, to the semi-conductor industry for use in the manufacture of integrated circuits. A projection printer uses optics to illuminate a circuit design and trace this design on a silicon wafer. A perfect degree of accuracy is demanded. Thus, the central component of a projection printer is its optical system. The optical structure comprising Perkin-Elmer's Micralign printer is formed by Perkin-Elmer's Offer Patent No. 3,748,015 ('015) and Scott Patent No. 3,821,763 ('763).
Both patents possess two physical parts: a large concave spherical mirror and a smaller convex spherical mirror axially spaced behind it. Light that has been shown across the circuit's design is reflected off the concave mirror to the convex one and then to the image location on the silicon wafer. This procedure results in a near perfect reproduction of the circuit design on the wafer.
Computervision's CA-3000 functions in a strikingly similar way. The Micralign and the CA-3000 are the only projection printers on the market in which the optics consist entirely of mirrors. Both axially space a small convex mirror behind a larger concave one. Both use a plate with an annular slit to restrict the light passing through the optical system and both have an identical light path from the circuit design to the wafer. The only difference is that the CA-3000 uses a less convex mirror and places the mirrors farther apart.
The similarities of the CA-3000 to the Micralign printer in time led Perkin-Elmer to sue Computervision for infringement of its optical patents. Computervision counterclaimed contending that Perkin-Elmer's patents were invalid. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict finding Perkin-Elmer's patents valid but not infringed. The district court failed to include in the judgment a reference to patent validity. The judgment refers only to the issue of infringement. Perkin-Elmer appeals from the judgment of no infringement. Computervision could not appeal from the verdict of patent validity because it did not result in a judgment. 1
Ordinarily a judgment on fewer than all the claims in an action does not terminate that action and, thus, is not appealable. Lockwood v. Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 603, 608 (9th Cir. 1980). An exception exists where "the district court obviously was not trying to adjudicate fewer than all the pleaded claims." Id. at 608. See also Wescott v. Impresas Armadoras S. A. Panama, 564 F.2d 875, 880-81 (9th Cir. 1977).
The district court here obviously was not trying to avoid adjudication on the issue of patent validity. Thus, all the claims were tried and adjudicated. This court has jurisdiction of the appeal brought by Perkin-Elmer.
Infringement is usually a matter of fact. Stilz v. United States, 269 U.S. 144, 147, 46 S.Ct. 37, 38, 70 L.Ed. 202 (1925); Reinharts, Inc. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 85 F.2d 628, 630 (9th Cir. 1936), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 694, 58 S.Ct. 13, 82 L.Ed. 536 (1937). Where, however, the facts are not in dispute, infringement becomes a matter of law. United States v. Esnault-Pelterie, 303 U.S. 26, 30, 58 S.Ct. 412, 414, 82 L.Ed. 625 (1937); Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BWB Controls, Inc. v. US Industries, Inc.
...function, way and result are not required, as the doctrine is based on "substantial" not exact identity. See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 680 F.2d 669 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 187, 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984). A finding of equivalence is a determination......
-
Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.
...Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 805 F.2d 663, 666–67 (7th Cir. 1986) ; Perkin–Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 680 F.2d 669, 670–671 (9th Cir. 1982) ; 15A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3914.7 (2d ed. 2016).3 The district court......
-
Martin v. Duffy
..."where ‘the district court obviously was not trying to adjudicate fewer than all the pleaded claims,’ " Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp. , 680 F.2d 669, 670 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Lockwood v. Wolf Corp. , 629 F.2d 603, 608 (9th Cir. 1980) ); see also Moreau v. Harris County , 15......
-
Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp.
...district court here obviously was not trying to avoid adjudication on the issue of patent validity". Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 680 F.2d 669, 216 USPQ 760 (1982). The Ninth Circuit held that Perkin-Elmer's motion for JNOV should have been granted, said nothing on the merits......
-
BEEFING UP SKINNY LABELS: INDUCED INFRINGEMENT AS A QUESTION OF LAW.
...Corp., 278 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1960); Hansen v. Colliver, 282 F.2d 66 (9th Cir. 1960). (82) Perkin-F.lmer Corp. v. Computer-vision Corp., 680 F.2d 669, 671 (9th Cir. 1982), affdon reh'g, 732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. (83) Gugliuzza, supra note 25, at 634 ("Under longstanding Supreme Court preceden......