A previous post discussed one significant piece of the massive patent litigation betweenÃÂ BP-DuPont joint venture Butamax and the advanced biofuels company Gevo. ÃÂ The most recent prior thread of this case – which resembles a yo-yo in its narrative – was an appellate court win for Butamax.
Initially,ÃÂ the district court ruled for Gevo,ÃÂ granting its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of two Butamax patents -ÃÂ U.S. Patent Nos.ÃÂ 7,993,889ÃÂ (Ã¢â¬â¢889 Patent)ÃÂ andÃÂ ÃÂ 7,851,188ÃÂ (Ã¢â¬â¢188 Patent). ÃÂ The district also denied both partiesÃ¢â¬â¢ motions on literal infringement and reached split decisions on validity of the patents.
Butamax appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then vacated both the grant of GevoÃ¢â¬â¢s motion for summary judgement of non-infringement and the denial of ButamaxÃ¢â¬â¢s motion for summary judgment.
Gevo petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and in a single, swift decisionÃÂ known as a GVR, the Supremes granted the petition, vacated the Federal Circuit decision, and remanded for further proceedings. ÃÂ Grant-Vacate-Remand, hence GVR (read a blurb on the decision and GVR at the Patently-O blog here).
The Federal Circuit must now reconsider this case in light of the Supreme Court’s recent , which raised the standard for appellate review of district court factual determinations in patent claim construction rulings.
Previously, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used a “de novo” standard, which meant it could take a fresh look at the evidence on claim construction and make its own determination, which led to a high reversal rate. ÃÂ After Teva, the Federal Circuit can reverse only where it finds “clear error” in the district court’s consideration of the facts in a claim construction decision.
So the yo-yo, in this thread of the patent war at least, swings back to Gevo with Butamax’s victory wiped out for the moment (see Gevo’s patent PR on the GVR decision here).