27 June 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court decided on The Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., and Care Rehab and Orthopaedic Products, Inc. The main question was if the District Court had properly judged the scope of the claims of the Saunders Patent, 6899690 (the '690), namely Claim 1.
This patent was a continuation of 6506174 (the '174). The purpose of the device in the '174 was is stretch out the lower back to relieve pain due to inflamed nerves. The purpose of the device described in the '690 is generally the same except meant to stretch out the neck/upper back. Both patents, in their independent claims, call for at least one pressure activated seal for use in pneumatic cylinders that both devices employed, but claim 1 of '690 did not mention the seal.
The District Court claimed that surely the use of a pressure activated seal was assumed for claim 1 of '690. CAFC disagreed and now wants to review the rest of the District Courts decision.
The CAFC's full opinion can be found at http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1576.pdf.
SAUNDERS v. COMFORTRAC
Authors
Leave a comment