Court Opinion

ID: 3153977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-12 16:01:30.37704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:33.774417
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

     DELORME PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.,
          DELORME INREACH, LLC,
              Plaintiffs-Appellees

                            v.

                 BRIARTEK IP, INC.,
                  Defendant-Appellant
                 ______________________

                  2015-1169, 2015-1241
                 ______________________

   Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-00640-LMB-
TRJ, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
                ______________________

              Decided: November 12, 2015
                ______________________

    PETER J. BRANN, Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston, ME,
argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by STACY
O. STITHAM, DAVID SWETNAM-BURLAND; EDWARD A.
PENNINGTON, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Washing-
ton, DC.

    JOHN ROBERT FUISZ, The Fuisz-Kundu Group LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also
represented by SUDIP KUMAR KUNDU.
2           DELORME PUBLISHING CO., INC.   v. BRIARTEK IP, INC.

                 ______________________

    Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
    We affirm the decisions by the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1) denying
BriarTek IP, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; (2) denying BriarTek’s motion to
strike portions of DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and
DeLorme InReach LLC’s (collectively, “DeLorme”) sum-
mary judgment briefing; (3) granting summary judgment
of invalidity of claims 1, 2, 5–12, 17, 34, and 35 of U.S.
Patent No. 7,991,380 for anticipation and obviousness;
and (4) awarding costs to DeLorme. We note that despite
the district court’s general statement in its summary
judgment order that the ’380 patent is invalid, the parties
agree this case is limited to claims 1, 2, 5–12, 17, 34, and
35 of the ’380 patent and therefore only these claims are
being held invalid.
                         AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
     Costs to DeLorme.