Case Name: SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Von KAHLE (Assignee for the benefit of the creditors of The Tag Company US, LLC), Defendant, and Phenix Label Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Dennis Gadonneix, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-17
Citations: 367 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 2009-1193
Parties: SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Von KAHLE (Assignee for the benefit of the creditors of The Tag Company US, LLC), Defendant, and Phenix Label Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Dennis Gadonneix, Defendant.
Judges: Before BRYSON, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 143–143

Head Matter:
SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Philip Von KAHLE (Assignee for the benefit of the creditors of The Tag Company US, LLC), Defendant, and Phenix Label Company, Defendant-Appellant, and Dennis Gadonneix, Defendant.
No. 2009-1193.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2010.
Robert R. Waters, Enrico A. Mazzoli, Waters Law Group, PLLC, Louisville, ICY, Olen L. York III, Waters Law Group, PLLC, Huntington, WV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Mark L. Levine, Mark S. Ouweleen, Shayna S. Cook, Bartlit Beck Herman Pa-lenchar, Chicago, IL, Sean C. Grimsley, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BRYSON, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The judgment in this case is affirmed. With respect to the inequitable conduct claim, we uphold the district court's ruling of no inequitable conduct based on the court's finding that the inventors did not act with the intent to deceive the Patent and Trademark Office; we do not address the question whether the information that was not disclosed was material. With respect to the public use issue, we uphold the district court's conclusion that the appellant Phenix failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the invention was in public use more than one year before the filing date for the patent; we do not address the question whether any alleged use of the invention during the period pri- or to the filing date of the patent fell within the experimental use exception to the public use doctrine.