Belkin/Kensington Decision Reversed

COMPTON, CALIF. — Belkin International announced earlier this month that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington reversed a finding of infringement by Belkin.

The case was regarding a notebook computer lock patent held by Kensington, a division of ACCO Brands. In May 2004, it was determined by a jury in Marshall, Texas, that Belkin Components' C100 and K100 notebook security locks infringed on Kensington's patents. Belkin and its manufacturer, ABA Locks Manufacturer, were determined to be in "willful" violation of Kensington's intellectual property rights and were ordered to pay damages to Kensington amounting to more than $4.1 million.

Belkin appealed the 2004 decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the Federal Circuit, "arguing that the jury's findings of induced infringement and willful infringement were not supported by substantial evidence. Belkin contended that the jury award of damages was unsupported by substantial evidence and that the district court abused its discretion by awarding Kensington enhanced damages and attorney fees," according to a release put out by Belkin.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Belkin on Sept. 12 in a unanimous decision, stating "ACCO failed to prove the threshold requirement of direct infringement" and "failed to point to specific instances of direct infringement." The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment of induced infringement, and vacated the district court's judgment with respect to willfulness, enhanced damages and attorney fees against Belkin.

Mark Reynoso, Belkin International president for Belkin International, said in a statement, "We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the appeal. As an organization, Belkin respects the intellectual property right of others and follows a strict policy to avoid violating such rights. However, when we are wrongly accused of IP infringement, we will fully defend ourselves until we are exonerated. This case proves our steadfast willingness to defend ourselves against unfounded assertions of intellectual property right infringement."