Yesterday in Mag Aerospace Industries, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Mr. 23, 2016)(Prost, C.J.), in the course of an affirmance of noninfringement of a vacuumless toilet patent, the Court provided a tutorial on assignor estoppel, Mag Aerospace, slip op. at 9-11.
Too Many Law Clerks (con’d): Given that the Court concluded that there was no infringement even if the claims were valid, precisely why was it necessary for the Court to provide a tutorial on assignor estoppel unnecessary for the noninfringement holding in this case?
An excerpt of the opinion is attached.
Regards,
Hal