and if so, did this result in the Final Determination of non infringement? Is it possible for Otteson to turn this around should an appeal be granted?
From the Reply Post Hearing Brief of the Commissions's Investigative Staff (public version filed August 19, 2013) Footnote 3 pg 2
3
Although Ground Rule 10.1 requires the parties to “discuss the issues and evidence
tried…within the framework of…the general outline of the briefs set forth in
Appendix B ,”
Complainants’ Initial Post-Hearing Brief (July 1, 2013) does not set forth a claim-by-claim
analysis as the general outline directs. Instead, Complainants’ brief only addresses certain
groups of claim limitations. Complainants’ departure from the general outline set forth in the
Ground Rules frustrates a proper infringement analysis, which requires determining whether
“each and every claim limitation be present in the accused product.”
Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v.
Mayne Pharma (USA) Corp
., 467 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-
La Roche Ltd.
, 580 F.3d 1340, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“If any claim limitation is absent from the
accused device, there is no literal infringement as a matter of law.”).
