Vicks thermometer manufacturer receives mixed verdict in appeal case
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has delivered Kaz USA with a mixed verdict in a patent infringement appeal case.
Kaz argued that it didn’t infringe patents belonging to Exergen, after the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that it did.
The case involves Exergen’s patent “Temporal artery temperature detector” (US numbers 6,292,685 and 7,787,938) covering technology that calculates a person’s core temperature by detecting the temperature of the forehead directly above the superficial temporal artery.
Kaz manufactures a number of thermometers, including the Braun and Vicks thermometers.
Exergen also sued Brooklands and Thermomedics in different cases. Brooklands, Thermomedics and Kaz agreed on a consolidated claim construction together, although other proceedings were dealt with separately.
Kaz applied for a summary judgment of invalidity and motions for judgment as a matter of law with respect to non-infringement, but the district court denied these. In response, Kaz appealed against the decision.
Claims within the ‘685 patent describe the product’s functions as “computing an internal body temperature” as a “function of ambient temperature and” either “the peak temperature reading” or “sensed surface temperature”. The claims require detecting temperature by laterally scanning a detector across the forehead.
Kaz, Thermomedics and Brooklands’ joint claim construction statement argued that “internal body temperature” means “temperature of a region of the body existing beneath the sensed surface”. They said the “sensed surface” is the forehead.
Therefore, the limitations requiring “computing an internal body temperature” require “computing the temperature” or a region of the body existing “beneath the forehead”, said the defendants.
The jury found that Kaz did infringe the patent, and the court denied a post-trial motion for judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law.
Kaz disputed the decision, saying that the alleged infringement is not supported by substantial evidence because “the accused devices calculate an oral-equivalent temperature, not the temperature of the body beneath the forehead”.
The Federal Circuit agreed with Kaz’s argument and reversed the verdict of infringement on the claims in respect to the ‘685 patent based on a lack of substantial evidence.
While it reversed the verdict of infringement on the ‘685 patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law that the claims were ineligible.
The Federal Circuit vacated the damages award for a determination by the district court based on the impact the reversal of the infringement of the ‘685 patent claims has on the award.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Join us at LSPN North America on April 26, find out more here.
