Court Opinion

ID: 9477261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:18:39.518103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:46.958155
License: Public Domain

NIES, Circuit Judge,
concurring-in-part.
I join Judge Smith’s opinion except Part V on estoppel in which I concur in result. We are reviewing a summary judgment grant. Therefore, it is only necessary here to answer Jamesbury’s single argument, namely, that there is a disputed fact issue with respect to Litton’s detrimental reliance. On that point, I agree that there is no presumption arising from a six-year (or even longer) delay that the alleged infringer detrimentally relied on a patentee’s acts. I also agree that the infringer here affirmatively established the detrimental reliance element of estoppel and that there is no genuine factual dispute on the matter.
I join Judge Archer’s opinion, which, accordingly, becomes the majority opinion on the issue of estoppel.