This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn (Nonprecedential)

SPEX Technologies, Inc. (“SPEX”) sued Apricorn in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the ’802 patent”). During claim construction, the district court held that claims 6, 7, 23, and 25 of the ’802 patent were invalid as indefinite. SPEX thereafter tried claims 11 and 12 to a jury, and the jury found that Apricorn infringed those claims. After the verdict, Apricorn moved for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that it did not infringe. SPEX opposed; it also argued that if the district court were to grant the motion, it should at least give SPEX a new trial. But the district court granted JMOL of noninfringement and denied SPEX’s request for a new trial.

SPEX appeals the noninfringement JMOL, new-trial denial, and indefiniteness ruling. Apricorn conditionally cross-appeals. We affirm the noninfringement JMOL and new-trial denial, reverse the indefiniteness ruling, dismiss Apricorn’s conditional cross-appeal as moot, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Rule 36 Judgments