Chad Industries, Inc. v. Automation Tooling System, Inc.

Good Law
938 F. Supp. 601·1996 WL 547860·1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17276
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 1996SACV 95-969-EECalifornia5,555 words

Opinion

Opinion

Edwards, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PATENT CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION

1. Introduction.

Plaintiff Chad Industries, Inc. (“Chad”), brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Chad alleges that defendant ATS Automation Tooling Systems, Inc. and its subsidiary ATS Ohio, Inc. (both referred to singularly herein as “ATS”) has and is infringing Chad’s U.S. patent no. 4,910,859. On October 20,1995, the parties filed a stipulation for disposition of this action before United States Magistrate Judge Elgin Edwards, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c).

2. Bifurcation of proceedings.

Chad timely demanded trial by jury on “all issues” in this patent infringement action. Just prior to the time set for pretrial conference before Judge Baird, however, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 975 , 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1326 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc). The parties agree that Markman requires this Court to construe the claims of the Chad patent but reserves for the jury the ultimate question of infringement, as well as other questions such as whether infringement was willful and the amount of damages to be awarded, if any. In the present…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.