Court Opinion

ID: 9401249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 15:02:19.262208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.544772
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1511   Document: 36     Page: 1   Filed: 06/12/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   OPTOLUM, INC.,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                      CREE, INC.,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-1511
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Middle District of North Carolina in No. 1:17-cv-00687-
 WO-JLW, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: June 12, 2023
                 ______________________

     LEIGH JOHN MARTINSON, McCarter & English, LLP,
 Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
 sented by LEAH R. MCCOY; JACOB STEVEN WHARTON, Wom-
 ble Bond Dickinson LLP, Winston-Salem, NC.

     BLANEY HARPER, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued
 for defendant-appellee.   Also represented by EDWIN
 GARCIA; PETER DANIEL SIDDOWAY, Sage Patent Group, Ra-
 leigh, NC.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1511     Document: 36    Page: 2    Filed: 06/12/2023

 2                                OPTOLUM, INC.   v. CREE, INC.

     Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM.
      OptoLum, Inc. (“OptoLum”) asks us to reverse a dis-
 trict court decision finding prosecution history disclaimer
 and estoppel, in addition to excluding certain expert testi-
 mony. Although there is room for debate regarding the
 statements made during prosecution that sit at the core of
 this case, prosecution history disclaimer and estoppel are
 legal questions on which we agree with the district court.
 We have considered OptoLum’s remaining arguments but
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the de-
 cision of the district court is affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED