Opinion ID: 2929114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Patent Infringement Action

Text: In 2004, Intamin filed suit against Magnetar, contending that Magnetar had infringed the ‘350 Patent by selling “Soft Stop” brakes, a type of magnetic braking system. See Intamin II, 483 F.3d at 1331. The district court granted summary judgment to Magnetar, holding that the “Soft Stop” brakes did not infringe the ‘350 Patent because the components of the “Soft Stop” brake differed from those in the magnetic braking system Intamin had patented. Id. at 1332. The Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the Central District of California, 8 MAGNETAR TECHS. V. INTAMIN concluding that the district court had erred by relying on a narrow construction of the ‘350 Patent. Id. at 1337. After remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to Magnetar, finding in part that Intamin had “unclean hands” concerning post-issuance assignment of the ‘350 Patent: “[D]espite not having been assigned any rights in the patent, Intamin began writing letters in 2001 to several companies claiming those companies had infringed Intamin’s patent and threatening litigation if the companies did not compensate Intamin by purchasing a license.” Intamin III, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1072. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s second grant of summary judgment, per curiam. See Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs. Corp., 404 F. App’x 496 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Intamin IV).