Opinion ID: 209660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Abbott v. Syntron

Text: On December 30, 1998, Abbott sued Syntron Bioresearch, Inc. (Syntron) for infringement of two patents, one of which was the '484 patent. Syntron counterclaimed that the patents were invalid, claiming, inter alia, that claims 22 and 23 of the '484 patent were invalid in light of Deutsch. On October 4, 2001, the jury returned a special verdict finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were not infringed and that Syntron had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims were anticipated, obvious, or otherwise invalid. The district court entered judgment accordingly. Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc., No. 98-CV-2359 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 12, 2001) ( Abbot Labs I ). Abbott appealed, and Syntron cross-appealed to this court. On appeal, we affirmed-in-part and remanded-in-part the judgment of noninfringement of the '484 patent and affirmed the judgment of validity on all asserted claims of the '484 patent. Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc., 334 F.3d 1343 (Fed.Cir.2003) ( Abbott Labs. II ). In particular, we sustained the judgment that Deutsch did not anticipate the asserted claims, noting that the burden having been on Syntron to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims were anticipated, we cannot conclude that the jury verdict on anticipation was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1357. We explained that the only issue raised regarding anticipation was whether Deutsch teaches flowing said solution along the medium. We agreed that the jury reasonably could have found it did not because the jury could have reasonably interpreted the language of the claims standing alone, as requiring that the solution itself provide the required flow. Id.