NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2005-1387, 2006-1333

TRANSLOGIC TECH NOLOGY, 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 Fr ancisco, California, and David S. Elkins of Palo Alto, California. Appealed from: United States Distric t Court for the District of Oregon Senior Judge Owen M. PannerNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2005-1387, 2006-1333 TRANSLOGIC TECH NOLOGY, 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, Lt d., and Renesas Technolo gy America, Inc. ("Hitachi") for infringement of U.S. Pat ent 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 ci rcuit "formed of two- to-one transmission gate multiplexer ("TGM") circuits connect ed in series." '666 Patent Abstract.2005-1387,2006-1333 2 In a parallel case before the same panel of this co urt, Translogic appealed the decision of the United Stat es 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 Interfer ences (July 14, 2005) (Request for Rehearing denied on October 26, 2005). The Board held the claims of the '666 patent obv ious based on prior art references disclosing series multiplexer ci rcuits in view of a 1985 textbook disclosing TGM circuits. Id. This court, in a precedential opi nion, 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 th e district court's decision and remands this case to the district co urt for dismissal.

VACATED and REMANDED

COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.