Rattler Tools v. Bilco Tools (Fed. Cir. 2008) (nonprecedential)
Rattler sued Bilco in the Eastern District of Louisiana — alleging that Bilco’s magnetic scrapper (used to clean out oil wells) infringed several patents. After a bench trial, the district court found the patents completely non-infringed. In particular,the district court held that the “accused products and methods did not meet any of the thirteen limitations ofthe ten asserted claims.”
Rattler appealed — asking for a new claim construction for each of those thirteen limitations. Without any detail analysis, the CAFC politely showed Rattler the door. “We have considered all of Rattler’s arguments. Having done so, we see no reason to disturb the careful and thorough post-trial decision of the district court.”
This case is unremarkable in its short analysis, but does serve as a reminder of the current state of patent appeals. The conventional wisdom that the CAFC re-writes a large percentage of claim construction decisions leads most losing parties to appeal on claim construction. At the same time, appellants are also including more claim construction arguments in each appeal.