Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.

806 F.2d 1565 (1986)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is the assignee of the '586 patent. The '586 patent discloses a wheelchair for treating persons, especially children, afflicted with scoliosis or curvature of the spine. P sued, D alleging infringement of claims 5 and 6 of the nine claims in the '586 patent. The '867 reissue patent discloses a collapsible pediatric wheelchair which facilitates the placing of wheelchair-bound persons, particularly children, in and out of an automobile. P asserted infringement of claims 1 through 5. P introduced the Travel Chair to the market in November of 1973. In 1978, D began to sell similar chairs. P alleged willful infringement of claims 5 and 6 of the '586 patent and various claims of its then '229 patent. When the '229 patent reissued as the '867 patent on February 16, 1982, P amended its complaint to allege infringement of claims 1-5 of that patent and demanded a jury trial. D claimed that the patents were invalid and not infringed, and counterclaimed that P had misused its patents when it filed its complaint. Specifically, P’s claims did not specify the sizes and types of automobiles which the wheelchair was to help in entering and exiting. The claim stated, “wherein said front leg portion is so dimensioned as to be insertable through the space between the doorframe of an automobile and one of the seats thereof.” The district court submitted to the jury a series of 54 jointly-prepared questions, which recognized the appropriate burdens to be met by each of the parties as well as the corresponding standard of proof with respect to each issue. The jury returned its answers to the questions on anticipation, obviousness, infringement, willful infringement, misuse, and personal liability of the corporate officers. All were favorable to P. The district court entered judgment on January 30, 1984, for the infringement and misuse issues only. The district court entered judgment on the jury verdicts on patent validity and willful infringement. D filed motions for JNOV on the issues of validity, infringement, and patent misuse, and in the alternative for a new trial. The district court vacated its January 30 and July 17, 1984 judgments, and dismissed the complaint and counterclaim. It granted D's JNOV motion on validity, holding claims 5 and 6 of the '586 patent invalid because the claimed inventions were: (1) on sale or in public use, under § 102(b); and (2) described in a printed publication under § 102(b); and (3) obvious under § 103. The district court held claims 1-5 of the '867 patent invalid as: (1) indefinite under § 112; and (2) drawn to inventions that would have been obvious under § 103. Both parties appealed.