Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wavetronix v. EIS Elec. Integrated Sys., Nos. 2008-1129, -1160 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2009)

Wavetronix v. EIS Elec. Integrated Sys., Nos. 2008-1129, -1160 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2009)

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 137|Likes:
Published by Chris Sullivan
Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment for non-infringement by EIS.
Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment for non-infringement by EIS.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Chris Sullivan on Jul 29, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1129, -1160WAVETRONIX,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.EIS ELECTRONIC INTEGRATED SYSTEMS,Defendant-Cross Appellant.Brent P. Lorimer, Workman Nydegger, of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas R. Vuksinickand David R. Todd. Of counselwere Chad E. Nydegger and L. David Griffin.Richard D. Rochford, Nixon Peabody LLP, of Rochester, New York, argued fordefendant-cross appellant. Of counsel on the brief were Michael F. Orman and Wendell W.Harris.Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of UtahSenior Judge Bruce S. Jenkins
 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1129, -1160WAVETRONIX,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.EIS ELECTRONIC INTEGRATED SYSTEMS,Defendant-Cross Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah in Case No. 2:05-CV-73, Senior Judge Bruce Jenkins. ___________________________ DECIDED: July 29, 2009 ___________________________ Before NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and PATEL, District Judge.
PATEL, District Judge.Wavetronix LLC (“Wavetronix”) brought this patent infringement action againstEIS Electronic Integrated Systems (“EIS”). The patent in suit is United States PatentNo. 6,556,916 (“the ’916 patent”), entitled “System and Method for Identification ofTraffic Lane Positions.” Wavetronix and EIS both develop systems for monitoring the
 
The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel, United States District Court for theNorthern District of California, sitting by designation.
 
flow of automobile traffic on thoroughfares. Wavetronix accuses the automatic setupfeature of EIS’s Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor (“RTMS”) X3 monitoring device ofinfringing one independent claim and several dependent claims of the ’916 patent,literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to EIS.Wavetronix appeals the judgment of non-infringement, and EIS cross-appeals dismissalof its counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability. We conclude that summary judgment of non-infringement is proper, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.
1
 I. BACKGROUNDA. The Patent in Suit and Its Technological FieldUrban planners require accurate counts of vehicular traffic in order to plan theconstruction of new thoroughfares as well as to determine the optimal ways to useexisting thoroughfares. It is often useful to know how much traffic travels in a particularlane, for instance a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, as compared to other laneson the same thoroughfare. Numerous sensor devices using, for example, radar oracoustic signals have been developed to monitor the flow of vehicle traffic acrossseveral lanes of a road or highway. The ’916 patent’s Figure 5 illustrates a roadsidesensor unit with a field of vision extending across several lanes of a street.
1
Wavetronix argues that there are legal and factual errors in the districtcourt’s opinion and that such errors warrant reversal. The existence of any such errorsdoes not, in itself, compel reversal. This court sits to review judgments, not opinions.Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The party thatprevailed below may defend a judgment on any ground which the law and record permitthat would not expand the relief it has been granted. United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434U.S. 159, 166 n.8 (1977).2008-1129,-11602

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->