DELORME PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. BRIARTEK IP, INC. , No. 15-1169 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DELORME PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., DELORME INREACH, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. BRIARTEK IP, INC., Defendant-Appellant ______________________ 2015-1169, 2015-1241 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-00640-LMBTRJ, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema. ______________________ Decided: November 12, 2015 ______________________ PETER J. BRANN, Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston, ME, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by STACY O. STITHAM, DAVID SWETNAM-BURLAND; EDWARD A. PENNINGTON, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Washington, DC. JOHN ROBERT FUISZ, The Fuisz-Kundu Group LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by SUDIP KUMAR KUNDU. 2 DELORME PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. BRIARTEK IP, INC. ______________________ Before MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. MOORE, Circuit Judge. We affirm the decisions by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (1) denying BriarTek IP, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) denying BriarTek’s motion to strike portions of DeLorme Publishing Company, Inc. and DeLorme InReach LLC’s (collectively, “DeLorme”) summary judgment briefing; (3) granting summary judgment of invalidity of claims 1, 2, 5–12, 17, 34, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,380 for anticipation and obviousness; and (4) awarding costs to DeLorme. We note that despite the district court’s general statement in its summary judgment order that the ’380 patent is invalid, the parties agree this case is limited to claims 1, 2, 5–12, 17, 34, and 35 of the ’380 patent and therefore only these claims are being held invalid. AFFIRMED COSTS Costs to DeLorme.

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.