In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment of anticipation and obviousness. While the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the prior art expressly anticipated the asserted claims as a matter of law, the court did conclude that the prior art inherently disclosed the relevant limitations as a matter of law. Further, because the patentee's obviousness arguments were contingent on its anticipation arguments being successful, the court likewise affirmed the summary judgment of obviousness.
Interestingly, in a footnote the court noted that while the patentee challenged the district court's claim construction of one term in its brief, it conceded at oral argument that the issue of claim construction was not properly before the court because the patentee did not contend that the resolution of the anticipation issue depended on the construction of the term.
More on Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc. after the jump.