Court Opinion

ID: 209806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-13 08:00:03+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:58.198599
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  In this infringement action, the district court entered a judgment of non-liability, holding, inter alia, that liability for patent infringement was precluded on the ground of implied license / patent exhaustion.
 

  Defendant-appellee Salomon North America, Inc. (“Salomon”) argues that the judgment of non-liability should be affirmed on the ground of implied license. The implied license holding was set forth in the Nov. 6, 2006, Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge. Although parts of the Nov. 6, 2006,
  
   judgment
  
  were vacated, the
  
   decision
  
  upon which that judgment rested was not vacated. Counsel for plaintiffs-appellants Baychar, Inc. and Baychar Holdings, LLC, (“Baychar”) conceded in oral argument that the Nov. 6, 2006, decision was incorporated into the final amended judgment of Sept. 10, 2007, and acknowledged that the final judgment “rests both on Judge Horn-by’s decision and on the [Nov. 6, 2006] decision.” Oral Arg. at 7:30-7:43. On appeal, counsel raised no objection to the merits of the district court’s finding of implied license. Any objection to this decision was therefore waived. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment of non-liability is affirmed. We need not reach the other grounds asserted for affirmance of the judgment of non-liability.
 

  The district court also held that claim 8 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,048,810 (“the '810 patent”) was invalid, and entered a judgment of invalidity on Salomon’s counterclaim. Counsel for Salomon advised us that we need not reach the issue of invalidity here, and agreed that the judgment of invalidity here could appropriately be vacated.
  
   See
  
  Oral Arg. at 13:51-14:12 (“[I]f this court affirms the Salomon decision ... [on implied license or other grounds], Salomon would agree to have the collateral estoppel decision on invalidity by anticipation vacated... .”). The issue of invalidity of claim 8 of the '810 patent is before this court in a companion case,
  
   Baychar v. Burton Corp.,
  
  No.2008-1053 (Fed. Cir. filed Oct. 1, 2007), and will be resolved in that case. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment of invalidity here.
 

   AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART.
  

  COSTS
 

  No costs.