Case: Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., et al., No. 2013-1147 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2013). On appeal from E.D. Pa. Before Rader (C.J.), Clevenger, and Moore.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment of matter of law that certain patent claims were invalid as anticipated. CAFC reversed and remanded.

  • Anticipation: The CAFC did not find clear and convincing evidence of invalidity such that no reasonable jury could find the claims not anticipated, and therefore reversed the district court. The CAFC found substantial evidence that the asserted prior art did not meet the claim limitation of a “relatively narrow opening.” The CAFC disagreed with Defendants’ alternative argument that other prior art devices anticipated the claims.