Opinion ID: 210077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annular and Polygonal Claims

Text: The remaining claims on appeal also present issues of the interpretation of our mandate. As mentioned above, IR argued to the district court on remand, and reiterates on appeal, that IXYS is precluded from contesting the presence of annular source regions in its accused devices because it failed to contest that claim limitation in the submissions required under the Central District of California's Local Rules. Indeed, IR describes IXYS's conduct with regard to this claim limitation as non-compliance with the rules, and implies that the district court's decision to enter judgment against IXYS on this issue amounts to a discretionary sanction. We disagree with IR because it raised, and we rejected, the same issue during the last appeal. [O]nce a case has been decided on appeal, the rule adopted is to be applied, right or wrong, absent exceptional circumstances, in the disposition of the lawsuit. Gindes v. United States, 740 F.2d 947, 949 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting Schwartz v. NMS Indus., Inc., 575 F.2d 553, 554 (5th Cir.1978)). In its brief as appellee in IR I, IR specifically raised, as an alternative basis for affirmance, the argument it reiterates today that IXYS had failed to contest the presence of annular source regions with respect to the '699 patent. Br. for Appellee IR at 25-26, IR I, 361 F.3d 1363 (Nos. 02-1414, 02-1554) (filed Nov. 27, 2002). IXYS responded by describing this technical argument as sophistry, because it was undisputed that the term annular has the same meaning in all three patents. Repl. Br. for Appellant IXYS at 12 n. 14, IR I, 361 F.3d 1363 (Nos. 02-1414, 02-1554) (filed Dec. 16, 2002). In IR I, we explicitly vacated and remanded as to the annular limitation found in all three patents, including the '699 claims that IXYS allegedly failed to contest. IR I, 361 F.3d at 1375 (Because factual issues exist as to whether IXYS's devices include the `polygonal' and `annular' limitations of the claims, as properly construed, we vacate-in-part the district court's grant of partial summary judgment of infringement in favor of IR that IXYS's devices infringe claims 1, 7-8, 20, 23, 25-26, and 28-29 of the '699 patent; . . . and remand the same for consideration consistent with this opinion.). In so doing, although we did not discuss the issue explicitly, we necessarily rejected all of IR's procedural arguments as to why the annular limitation should be treated differently in the three patents-in-suit. See Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 137 F.3d 1475, 1478 (Fed.Cir.1998) ([I]n some cases issues not explicitly addressed by an appellate court may nonetheless be decided by necessary implication.). IR presents no argument as to why we should find exceptional circumstances and revisit this issue. Accordingly, we conclude that our mandate in IR I required the district court to treat the annular limitation the same way as to the '699, '725, and '767 patents. The jury verdict of non-infringement as to the annular limitation of the '725 and '767 patents carries over to the corresponding limitation in the asserted claims of the '699 patent and compels a judgment of non-infringement of that patent, just as of the other two.