Opinion ID: 856110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I believe. I think so.

Text: The ’343 patent states that the process “ensures that there is no dielectric material between” the conductive layers. ’343 patent col.3 ll.45-48. Dr. Zahn reviewed the ’343 patent and determined that a resonance tag made in accordance with that method would have a hole in the dielectric layer. Both the ’466 and ’343 patents show that the products have holes in the dielectric, as claimed in Checkpoint’s ’555 patent. CHECKPOINT v. ALL TAG 11 All-Tag argues that Dr. Zahn’s reliance on the All-Tag patents was unreasonable because of the qualifier “generally” in All-Tag’s pre-trial “Admission” that its manufacturing process practiced the All-Tag patents. All-Tag states that “generally” does not mean “exactly,” and that Checkpoint should not have relied on the admission. However, a party may rely on an admission as “conclusively established” unless the admission is recanted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) (“A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”); Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 228 F.3d 1338, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (pre-trial infringement admissions were binding because accused infringer “offered no correction of these admissions before the court’s judgment”). All-Tag provided no evidence and presented no argument that its pre-trial admission was incorrect. All-Tag’s expert Dr. Rose testified that he did not examine the accused tags, although Dr. Rose conceded that All-Tag would infringe if the “physical reality” matched the description in the All-Tag patents. As to All-Tag’s ’466 patent, Dr. Rose testified: So, if the physical reality is exactly [as shown in the patent], if that is the physical reality, then again, we are done, I agree. Similarly, as to the ’343 patent, Dr. Rose testified: So, if the product reflected -- so, if the recipe specified in that patent gave you exactly what they say in the patent . . . then again I think we are done. Because what they say in the patent is that there is an air gap, there is no dielectric in between an- ything . . . What that means is if the physical reality of the product is exactly as described in the patent, then 12 CHECKPOINT v. ALL TAG I -- I think we would have infringement . . . . I can’t say infringement. I would say that we have a throughhole. All-Tag cites L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006), where this court rejected the assessment of liability based solely on the alleged infringer’s statements that the accused products are “covered” by its own patent, because the patent included multiple embodiments and it was unclear whether the patent disclosed the critical infringing feature. In contrast, All-Tag’s ’466 and ’343 patents are specific to resonance tags having a hole in the dielectric; the All-Tag patents describe no embodiments without the hole, which is the critical feature of Checkpoint’s ’555 patent. All-Tag’s admission that its products are made “generally in accordance” with its patents could reasonably have been relied on by Checkpoint and its expert Dr. Zahn. Such reliance was not “objectively baseless.” See Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting “a general rule requiring one who alleges infringement of a claim containing functional limitations to perform actual tests or experiments on the accused product or method”). The infringement charge was not shown to have been made in bad faith or objectively baseless. The district court’s determination that this was an exceptional case under §285 is not supported by the record. The award of attorney fees with costs and interest is reversed. REVERSED