Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01169/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01169-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BriarTek IP, Inc.
Appellant
DeLorme Inreach, LLC
Appellee
DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DELORME PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., 

DELORME INREACH, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

BRIARTEK IP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1169, 2015-1241

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-00640-LMBTRJ, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

______________________ 

Decided: November 12, 2015 

______________________ 

PETER J. BRANN, Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston, ME, 

argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by STACY 

O. STITHAM, DAVID SWETNAM-BURLAND; EDWARD A.

PENNINGTON, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Washington, DC. 

JOHN ROBERT FUISZ, The Fuisz-Kundu Group LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by SUDIP KUMAR KUNDU.

Case: 15-1169 Document: 57-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/12/2015
2 DELORME PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. BRIARTEK IP, INC. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

We affirm the decisions by the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1) denying 

BriarTek IP, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction; (2) denying BriarTek’s motion to 

strike portions of DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and 

DeLorme InReach LLC’s (collectively, “DeLorme”) summary judgment briefing; (3) granting summary judgment 

of invalidity of claims 1, 2, 5–12, 17, 34, and 35 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,991,380 for anticipation and obviousness; 

and (4) awarding costs to DeLorme. We note that despite 

the district court’s general statement in its summary 

judgment order that the ’380 patent is invalid, the parties 

agree this case is limited to claims 1, 2, 5–12, 17, 34, and 

35 of the ’380 patent and therefore only these claims are 

being held invalid.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to DeLorme.

Case: 15-1169 Document: 57-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/12/2015