BUTAMAX(TM) ADVANCED BIOFUELS LLC, v. GEVO, INC., 2012-1490. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Number: infco20121116168
Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2012
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential. RADER, Chief Judge. This appeal comes before the court following the denial of a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case. This court reviews such decisions for abuse of discretion. See Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 , 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Based on the record and this standard of review, this court affirms the denial of the preliminary injunction. Gevo, Inc. raised a substantial question of validity concerning the asse
Summary: This disposition is nonprecedential. RADER, Chief Judge. This appeal comes before the court following the denial of a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case. This court reviews such decisions for abuse of discretion. See Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 , 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Based on the record and this standard of review, this court affirms the denial of the preliminary injunction. Gevo, Inc. raised a substantial question of validity concerning the asser..
More
This disposition is nonprecedential.
RADER, Chief Judge.
This appeal comes before the court following the denial of a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case. This court reviews such decisions for abuse of discretion. See Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Based on the record and this standard of review, this court affirms the denial of the preliminary injunction. Gevo, Inc. raised a substantial question of validity concerning the asserted patent, a question which Butamax has failed to show "lacks substantial merit." See Amazon.com Inc. v. Barnsandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
However, this court's affirmance should not be read to endorse the trial court's very questionable construction of the claim term "acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase" — that is "as an enzyme that is solely NADPH dependent." The trial court should reconsider its construction when it holds a Markman hearing. Costs of this appeal shall be borne by the respective parties.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
Source: Leagle
