Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
819 F. Supp. 2d 524
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Fox sues Cree for infringement of the '130 and '026 patents related to low-defect SiC growth by seeded sublimation.
- Cree moves for summary judgment—invalidity of the '130 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(g)(2) and non-infringement; Fox opposes.
- Court previously construed key terms of the '130 and '026 patents and held Fox’s summary judgment on '026 non-infringement; only '130 issues remain.
- Cree presents evidence that in 1995 Cree engineers grew a low-defect SiC boule (G0259-3) and publicly disclosed it at a 1995 conference with a 1996 publication.
- Fox challenges whether Cree validly reduced the invention to practice and whether Cree abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention.
- Court concludes Cree reduced the invention to practice prior to Fox and Fox did not prove abandonment/suppression; the '130 patent is invalid under §102(g)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cree’s 102(g)(2) prior invention invalidates the '130 patent | Fox: Cree did not meet reduction-to-practice or appreciation in 1995 | Cree: 1995 G0259-3 boule met the claimed defects and Cree appreciated the invention in 1995 | Invalidity proven; Cree before Fox |
| Whether Cree reduced the invention to practice before Fox | Fox disputes 1995 reduction-to-practice by Carter/Tsvetkov | Cree shows contemporaneous recognition and testing in 1995 | Cree reduced the invention to practice prior to Fox |
| Whether Cree abandoned, suppressed, or concealed its invention | Fox argues delay in public disclosure implies abandonment/suppression | Cree publicly disclosed in 1995 via presentation and 1996 publication; no suppression | No genuine issue; no abandonment/suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc., 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (two-path §102(g)(2) proof; burden shifts after prior invention established)
- Mycogen Plant Sci. v. Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (two routes to prove prior invention)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Flex, 267 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (test for reduction to practice and appreciation under 102(g)(2))
- Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (applies the notion that invention requires appreciation, not literal claim-language match)
- Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (evidence of appreciation supported by objective corroboration)
- Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc., 455 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (abandonment/suppression assessed with public disclosure timing)
- Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (anticipation standard in prior art context)