This court opinion addresses both appeals. 02-1630, pursuant to our Dismissal Order, and consolidated it with VDO's appeal, Docket No. We reinstated TI Group's appeal, Docket No. VDO filed a notice of cross-appeal from the district court's JMOL decision on invalidity, docketed in this court as 03-1482. TI Group moved for reinstatement of the appeal, in accordance with our Dismissal Order, and filed a renewed notice of appeal. The district court then entertained VDO's invalidity counterclaim and issued a second opinion, denying VDO's JMOL motion on invalidity. 2d 184 (1999) (defining a final judgment as one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute judgment").
§ 1295(a) (1) (2000) (giving this court jurisdiction over an "appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States" if that court's jurisdiction was based, in whole or in part, on 28 U.S.C. 2003) (" Dismissal Order") see also 28 U.S.C. Because the district court did not resolve VDO's JMOL motion on invalidity, leaving open VDO's counterclaim, this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. TI Group filed a timely appeal with this court, asserting errors in both the district court's claim constructions and its grant of VDO's JMOL motion of non-infringement. Check valve 22 does not retain fuel in the reservoir while the unit is operating, because it moves away from opening 14 by the action of jet pump 30, and further is not a necessary component for operation. Preferred embodiments include check valve 22 that prevents fuel above the valve from leaking out when the unit is not operating.
Even when the fuel in the tank is low, the action of jet pump 30 will maintain a comparatively high level of fuel in reservoir 10 and around inlet 42 to the high pressure pump 26. Jet pump 30, including nozzle 54 and venturi tube 58, supplies the reservoir with fuel by drawing fuel from the fuel tank via opening 14. A high pressure pump 26 sits in reservoir 10 and pumps fuel to the engine's fuel injectors 116 by way of line 106. The assembly includes a reservoir 10 having top and bottom openings 12 and 14. Although Figure 1 illustrates a dual fuel tank arrangement, single tank arrangements are more common and offer the advantages of compactness and ease of repair or replacement. However, because we reverse some of the district court's claim constructions, we vacate the district court's JMOL Invalidity Opinion and remand the invalidity issues to the district court for further proceedings in light of the claim constructions set forth in this opinion.įigure 1 of the '714 patent illustrates an embodiment of the invention.
#SIURU SMARTIRE SYSTEMS SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORP ET AL TRIAL#
Because we affirm the district court's claim constructions of the disputed terms "reservoir" and "within," and further, because we conclude that the facts presented at trial are sufficient to support the district court's grant of judgment of non-infringement in VDO's favor, we affirm the district court's JMOL Infringement Opinion. June 6, 2003) (" JMOL Invalidity Opinion").
The defendants cross-appeal the district court's denial of their motion for JMOL of invalidity of the '714 patent. ("TI Group"), appeals from a post-trial decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") that VDO North America, L.L.C., Mannesmann VDO AG, Siemens VDO Automotive Corp., and Siemens VDO Automotive AG (collectively "VDO" or "defendants") do not infringe U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
