Opinion ID: 600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Figure 1 of '448 Patent

Text: Michael Marrin formed a company, Upardi, Inc. (Upardi), to manufacture the labels, and containers with the labels, with the objective of securing a license from the Griffins for the '448 patent. On June 5, 2002, the Griffins entered into a license agreement with Upardi. The relationship between Michael Marrin and the Griffins broke down swiftly, due primarily to differences in opinion about the appropriate payment obligations under the license. On April 11, 2006, the Griffins notified Michael Marrin that the license was terminated. In January 2007, Michael Marrin and Etch-It, Inc., a company Michael Marrin had created to market and sell scratch-off labels, filed an action for declaratory relief against the Griffins in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking a determination, inter alia, that the Griffins '448 patent was invalid. Then, in March 2007, the Griffins filed suit against Michael Marrin, Heidi Marrin, and Etch-It, Inc. (collectively Marrin) in state court, alleging that Marrin was willfully infringing the '448 patent. Marrin removed the Griffins' action from the state court to the California district court, and the two actions were consolidated. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that the '448 patent was invalid as anticipated, and therefore was not infringed by Marrin. Marrin, 2008 WL 4184643, at , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at -2. In reaching this conclusion, the district court noted that the Griffins' only basis for arguing against anticipation is that the preamble language is an additional limitation. Id., 2008 WL 4184643, at , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at . Based on its finding that the preamble language is not limiting, the district court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would find that the limitations of the body of the claims of the '448 patent are anticipated by one or more of eight patents on scratch-off devices: U.S. Patent Nos. 4,241,943 (the Malinovitz patent); 4,637,635 (the Levine patent); 2,523,650 (the Dickson patent); 4,095,824 (the Bachman patent); 4,508,513 (the Donovan patent); 4,900,617 (the Smith patent); 4,299,637 (the Oberdeck patent); and 4,536,218 (the Gamho patent). Id., 2008 WL 4184643, at , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at , 7. None of these eight patents was cited during the prosecution of the '448 patent. The Griffins timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Because this appeal is from a grant of summary judgment, we review the district court's determination de novo and view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (here the Griffins). See OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1402 (Fed. Cir.1997). Anticipation is a question of fact. Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 (Fed.Cir.1986).