Kbl Corporation, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Ming-tay Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. and Wen Tay Kuo,defendants/cross-appellants, 891 F.2d 298 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 891 F.2d 298 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Nov. 2, 1989

Before NIES, BISSELL and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

DECISION

KBL Corporation (KBL) appeals the portion of the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. CA 85-2995-H, dated January 11, 1989, that the MT 3025 bicycle lock of Ming-Tay Hardware Industrial Company, Ltd. (Ming-Tay) did not infringe United States Patent No. 4,155,231 ('231 patent) under the doctrine of equivalents. Ming-Tay and Wen Tay Kuo cross-appeal portions of the judgment (1) that the '231 patent is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and (2) that the '231 patent is not unenforceable on the basis of inequitable conduct. We affirm the district court's determinations that Ming-Tay's bicycle lock did not infringe the '231 patent and that there was no inequitable conduct in the prosecution of the application for that patent. The court's holding on validity is vacated.


OPINION

We have considered the record and arguments of KBL on the infringement issue, but we are not convinced that the court's finding of noninfringement was clearly erroneous. Further, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the district court, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no inequitable conduct in prosecuting the application for the '231 patent. See Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 9 USPQ2d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

In view of our affirmance of the district court's determination with respect to infringement, the decision of the district court that the '231 patent is not invalid is moot. See Vieau v. Japax, Inc., 823 F.2d 1510, 3 USPQ2d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

COSTS

Costs are awarded to Ming-Tay.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.