Skip to main content
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

Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., No. 09-1001

By FindLaw Staff on July 20, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a patent infringement action involving refrigerator parts, district court's grant of summary judgment and permanent injunction for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the court properly construed the claim term "relatively resilient end edge portion" in the patent to require only that the frame of the shelf be flexible at the time of manufacture; 2) the court properly granted summary judgment as there was undisputed evidence that the frames of defendant's accused shelves were flexible at the time of manufacture, and thus infringed on plaintiff's patent; and 3) the court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial on obviousness as plaintiff's expert's testimony provided substantial evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the results of the combination recited in the patent, and defendant did not seek to exclude or strike the expert's testimony at trial and therefore the issue is waived.   

Read Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., No. 09-1001

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Decided July 20, 2009

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, SCHALL and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by LINN, Circuit Judge.

For Plaintiff: David L. De Bruin, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, of Chicago, Illinois.

For Defendant: Arthur I. Neustadt, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Alexandria, Virginia.

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