Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

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

By FindLaw Staff on August 04, 2009 4:08 PM

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.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard