Patent Law

Rattled

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

Rattler Tools sued Bilco Tools and William Coyle for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition. A Louisiana district court judge conducted a bench trial. Not even close. Rattler, rattled, appealed.

Rattler Tools v. Bilco Tools and William Coyle (CAFC 2007-1505)

The patents relate to retrieval tools that employ magnets to remove scraps of metal from oil wells.

With respect to infringement, the court construed all limitations of the asserted claims and then found that the accused products and methods did not meet any of the thirteen limitations of the ten asserted claims.

On appeal, Rattler contends that the district court erred in its construction of twelve of the thirteen limitations of the ten claims at issue. It requests a different claim construction for each of these limitations. Rattler urges us to remand the case to the district court for it to conduct an infringement analysis of each asserted claim based upon what it argues is the correct claim construction. Rattler also contends that we should reverse the district court's dismissal of its state law claims. We have considered all of Rattler's arguments. Having done so, we see no reason to disturb the careful and thorough post-trial decision of the district court. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court in favor of Appellees dismissing Rattler's claims.

Another junk patent assertion venomized.

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on May 23, 2008 (boomark / email).