Abuse of Discretion on Evidentiary Exclusions Leads CAFC to Vacate Parking Lot Management System Ruling

"Because the parties did not dispute this parking system was indistinguishable from the method claimed in the '956 patent, excluding the offer for sale was clear legal error and an abuse of discretion, said the CAFC."

"However, the Federal Circuit reversed some aspects of the district court's rulings after finding abuse of discretion by excluding evidence related either to invalidating sales of the patented method or to bad faith patent infringement allegations against several customers using the alleged infringer's accused system, including a regional airport."

"In 2018, Indect USA filed suit in Southern California seeking declaratory judgment that neither it nor its customers infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 9594956, Method and System for Managing a Parking Lot Based on Intelligent Imaging. Prior to that suit, Park Assist asserted that Indect's UPSOLUT system infringes the '956 patent in letters sent to Indect's customers, including the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority that was sued separately by Park Assist. Along with noninfringement, Indect sought a declaration that Park Assist's written communications and lawsuit against the airport was unfair competition violating Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for pursuing baseless infringement claims. After a jury verdict of noninfringement, the district court found that the '956 patent was not invalid and that Indect failed to prove its unfair competition claim, while also denying Park Assist's motion to amend the judgment to clarify that the jury's noninfringement finding did not apply to Indect's customers."

Indect USA filed suit in 2018 seeking declaratory judgment that neither it nor its customers infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,594,956, Method and System for Managing a Parking Lot Based on Intelligent Imaging. Prior to that suit, Park Assist sent letters asserting Indect's UPSOLUT system infringed the patent and separately sued the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. A jury returned a verdict of noninfringement. The district court then found the '956 patent not invalid and rejected Indect's unfair competition claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, while denying Park Assist's motion to amend the judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed much of the district court's judgment but reversed portions where the court excluded evidence tied to invalidating sales and bad-faith infringement allegations, finding those exclusions were abuses of discretion.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law