Delorme Publishing Company, Inc., Delorme Inreach, LLC v. Briartek Ip, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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-LMB-
TRJ, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.
______________________
Decided: November 12, 2015
______________________
P ETER J. BRANN, Brann & Isaacson, Lewiston, ME,
argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by S TACY
O. STITHAM , D AVID SWETNAM -BURLAND ; EDWARD A.
P ENNINGTON, Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Washing-
ton, DC.
J OHN ROBERT F UISZ, The Fuisz-Kundu Group LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also
represented by SUDIP K UMAR K UNDU.

-- 1 of 2 --

DELORME PUBLISHING CO., INC. v. BRIARTEK IP, INC. 2
______________________
Before M OORE, REYNA , and T ARANTO, 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”) sum-
mary 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.

-- 2 of 2 --