NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2005-1387, 2006-1333 

TRANSLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, LTD., 

 and RENESAS TECHNOLOGY AMERICA, INC., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

Jeffrey S. Love, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, argued for 

plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Jared S. Goff and John D. Vandenberg. 

Of counsel was Kevin M. Hayes. 

James G. Gilliland, Jr., Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, of Palo Alto, 

California, argued for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were Madison C.

Jellins and D. Stuart Bartow. Of counsel on the brief were David Axelrod, Schwabe, 

Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., of Portland, Oregon, and Nathan Lane III, Squire, Sanders & 

Dempsey L.L.P., of San Francisco, California, and David S. Elkins of Palo Alto, 

California. 

 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Oregon 

Senior Judge Owen M. Panner 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2005-1387, 2006-1333 

TRANSLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, LTD., 

and RENESAS TECHNOLOGY AMERICA, INC., 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

___________________________ 

 DECIDED: October 12, 2007 

___________________________ 

Before MAYER, RADER, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

RADER, Circuit Judge. 

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered judgment 

against Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., and Renesas Technology America, Inc. 

("Hitachi") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,162,666 ("the '666 patent") owned by 

Translogic Technology, Inc. ("Translogic"). Translogic Tech., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., 

Hitachi Am., Ltd., and Renesas Tech. Am., Inc., Civ. No. 99-407-PA, (D. Or. May 12, 

2005) ("Opinion"); Translogic Tech., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Am., Ltd., and Renesas 

Tech. Am., Inc., Civil Action No.: 3-99-00407-PA (D. Or. December 13, 2005) ("Final 

Judgment"). The judgment imposed monetary damages and a permanent injunction. 

Id. The '666 patent describes a multiplexer circuit "formed of two-to-one transmission 

gate multiplexer ("TGM") circuits connected in series." '666 Patent Abstract. 
2005-1387,2006-1333 2

In a parallel case before the same panel of this court, Translogic appealed the 

decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Board of Patent Appeals 

and Interferences ("Board") upholding a patent examiner's rejection, in reexamination, 

of the '666 patent. Ex parte Translogic Tech., Inc., Appeal No. 2005-1050, Board of 

Patent Appeals and Interferences (July 14, 2005) (Request for Rehearing denied on 

October 26, 2005). The Board held the claims of the '666 patent obvious based on prior 

art references disclosing series multiplexer circuits in view of a 1985 textbook disclosing 

TGM circuits. Id. This court, in a precedential opinion, affirmed the Board's decision 

that the claims of the '666 patent are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In re 

Translogic Tech., Inc., ---- F.3d ---- (Fed. Cir. 2007). In light of this court's decision in In 

re Translogic Tech., Inc., this court vacates the district court's decision and remands this 

case to the district court for dismissal. 

VACATED and REMANDED

COSTS 

Each party shall bear its own costs.