Difference between revisions of "Riester:CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
 +
 
CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
 
CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
  
Line 4: Line 6:
  
 
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.
 
BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.
 +
 +
Plaintiff-Appellant CCS Fitness, Inc. appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado holding that the claim limitation “reciprocating member” as used in the asserted patents does not cover anything more than the single-component straight bar depicted in the patents' drawings. As a result, the district court concluded, the accused infringer Life Fitness warranted summary judgment of non-infringement, since its accused exercise machines' “pedal lever” uses a multi-component, curved bar.
 +
 +
i.e. CCS sued Brunswick for infringement but the District Court of Colorado warranted a summary judgement of non-infringement because the "reciprocating member" part of the claim only covers the single component straight bar depicted in patent drawings whereas Brunswick used a multiple-component, curved bar.  CCS appealed to USCA.

Revision as of 19:44, 24 March 2011

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

CCS FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division Life Fitness, Defendants Appellees.

Plaintiff-Appellant CCS Fitness, Inc. appeals from a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado holding that the claim limitation “reciprocating member” as used in the asserted patents does not cover anything more than the single-component straight bar depicted in the patents' drawings. As a result, the district court concluded, the accused infringer Life Fitness warranted summary judgment of non-infringement, since its accused exercise machines' “pedal lever” uses a multi-component, curved bar.

i.e. CCS sued Brunswick for infringement but the District Court of Colorado warranted a summary judgement of non-infringement because the "reciprocating member" part of the claim only covers the single component straight bar depicted in patent drawings whereas Brunswick used a multiple-component, curved bar. CCS appealed to USCA.