Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 24-1106 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

INLAND DIAMOND PRODUCTS CO. v. CHERRY OPTICAL INC. 2 Inland Diamond Products Co. (“Inland”) appeals from a summary judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court relied on issue preclusion to hold that claims 2, 4, and 6 of U.S. Pa- tent No. 8,636,360 (“the ’360 patent”) and claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,405,130 (“the ’130 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”) are invalid for obviousness. We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand.