Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-1491

By FindLaw Staff on August 04, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a patent infringement action involving infrared thermometers, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the court erred in finding that the claims in plaintiff's '205 patent were not anticipated by an earlier patent, and thus defendant cannot be liable for infringement of this patent; 2) plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant's device directly infringed on plaintiff's '813 patent and actively induced infringement plaintiff's '685 patent; and 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for leave to add allegations of inequitable conduct to its original answer, as its proposed allegations failed to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).   

Read Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 06-1491

Appellate Information
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Decided: August 4, 2009

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LINN, Circuit Judge, and ST. EVE, District Judge
Opinion by LINN, Circuit Judge.

For Plaintiff: Heidi E. Harvey, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, Massachusetts.

For Defendant: Peter M. Midgley, Jr., Zarian Midgley & Johnson PLLC, Boise, Idaho.

Copied to clipboard