Posts Tagged: "claim construction"

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California from an appeal by Kingston Technology Company LLC, in which the district court held that Kingston willfully infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,926,544 (‘544 patent) and awarded $7,515,327.40 in compensatory damages. The CAFC said in part that the district court can judicially correct claims when there are “obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in patents” without changing the scope of the claim.  

To quote a popular saying: “Let’s eat grandpa. Let’s eat, grandpa. Correct punctuation can save a person’s life.” And incorrect punctuation can cost millions of dollars. Do you know when to use a comma versus a semicolon? Do you know how to indent a plurality of elements in a claim? Do you know when to write “patent, copyright, or trademark” or “patent, copyright or trademark”? As Judge David J. Barron said: “For want of a comma, we have this case.”… Although there are no hard and fast grammatical rules, it’s better to err on the side of caution, following rules that courts have recognized.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denying Power Probe’s request for a preliminary injunction to bar future sales of Innova Electronics Corporation’s Powercheck #5420 device. The CAFC held that the district court erred in its preliminary claim construction, particularly in determining that “detecting continuity and measuring continuity are mutually exclusive.”

On April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp. clarifying how U.S. district courts handling claim construction are to construe a patent’s independent claims in light of limitations included in dependent claims. While the Federal Circuit found that the District of Massachusetts was correct to give meaning to the term “fastening stem” by looking to uses of “fastening” and “stem” within the patent, the appellate court vacated and remanded a stipulated judgment of non-infringement, as the district court’s construction of certain independent claim terms would render superfluous other claim terms from dependent claims.

On April 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed and remanded a summary judgment decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in an infringement suit brought by Genuine Enabling Technology (Genuine) against Nintendo Company and Nintendo of America (collectively “Nintendo”) for allegedly infringing certain claims of Genuine’s U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730 (‘730 patent). The CAFC reversed the district court’s summary judgment decision because the district court erred in its construction of “input signal” and should have construed the term to mean “a signal having an audio or higher frequency.”

On March 16, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division adopted the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of a magistrate judge and granted two motions of non-infringement for Simon Property Group L.P. (Simon) and Blackhawk Network, Inc. (Blackhawk). AlexSam, Inc. filed suit for patent infringement against Simon and Blackhawk, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (the ‘608 patent). AlexSam asserted that “[t]he ‘608 Patent covers a variety of important technologies relating to the debit card industry,” and “[t]he multifunction card system disclosed in the ‘608 Patent enabled consumers and retailers to use existing point-of-sales devices, the existing banking infrastructure, and a bank identification number (BIN) to perform financial transactions.”

On January 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to invalidate claims in two related patents, holding that the district court used the incorrect legal standard for indefiniteness. Nature Simulation Systems, Inc. (NSS) is the owner of United States Patents No. 10,120,961 (the ‘961 patent) and No. 10,109,105 (the ‘105 patent). Both patents relate to computer-implemented methods for building three-dimensional objects employing a computation method called “Boolean operation.” NSS brought an infringement action against Autodesk, Inc. in district court alleging infringement of claims 1 and 8 of the ‘961 patent and claim 1 of the ‘105 patent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday ruled that a California district court erred in its claim construction relating to Evolusion Concepts, Inc.’s patent for a method of converting a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine to one with a fixed magazine. The CAFC reversed the court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for Juggernaut Tactical, Inc., reversed a denial of summary judgment of direct infringement, vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded for further proceedings.

While many patent litigators have no plans to litigate in bankruptcy court, it is a possibility if the infringer of a client’s patent files for bankruptcy. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin recently conducted a Markman hearing. How did that happen?  After being sued for patent infringement in district court, the alleged infringer sought refuge in the bankruptcy court, staying the district court litigation. The plaintiff then filed a claim in the defendant’s bankruptcy case, which ultimately triggered the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. While rare, other bankruptcy courts have conducted claim construction proceedings. As discussed herein, the bankruptcy court ultimately granted a joint request for vacatur, prompting us to revisit the doctrine of vacatur.

On October 12, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two related precedential opinions affirming the decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, holding that neither Verizon Wireless and Sprint Communications nor Nokia Solutions infringed Traxcell Technologies LLC’s patents. raxcell sued Verizon and Sprint for infringing four of its patents, all of which share a specification and a 2001 priority date. The four patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,977,284 (the ‘284 patent), 9,5,10,320 (the ‘320 patent), 9,642,024 (the ‘024 patent), and 9,549,388 (the ‘388 patent). In a separate suit, Traxcell sued Nokia for infringing the ‘284, the ‘320, and the ‘024 patents.

The claims of three of the four patents at issue—the ‘284, 320, and ‘024 patents (collectively the SON patents)—are related to self-optimizing network (SON) technology for making “corrective actions” to improve communications between a wireless device and a network.

On October 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Snyders Heart Valve LLC’s (Snyders) patent claims for an artificial heart valve were unpatentable. The court said the PTAB relied on an erroneous claim construction. The CAFC previously vacated and remanded the appeal after only reaching Snyders’ argument under the Appointments Clause following its decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. The U.S. government sought certiorari to challenge the remand, and after its decision in United States v. Arthrex Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2021), the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the CAFC and remanded the matter back. Snyders waived the Appointments Clause challenge and asked the CAFC to consider the merits of the case on remand.

On October 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed-in-part the claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement ruling made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and dismissed-in-part Acceleration Bay LLC’s appeal against the makers of the Grand Theft Auto video game as moot. In July of 2000, Acceleration Bay filed four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (the ‘344 patent), 6,714,966 (the ‘966 patent), 6,910,069 (the ‘069 patent) and 6,920,497 (the ‘497 patent). The patents are unrelated but share a similar specification disclosing a networking technology that allegedly improves upon prior methods of communication. Specifically, the patents disclose a “broadcasting technique in which a broadcast channel overlays a point-to-point communication network.”

On August 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, holding Google LLC did not infringe patents held by Data Engine Technologies LLC (DET). DET sued Google for infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; and 6,282,551 (the Tab Patents). The Tab Patents are directed to systems and methods for displaying and navigating three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets by use of user customizable “notebook tabs” on a spreadsheet interface. The prior art discussed in this trio of patents explained that “three-dimensionality, as presently implemented, is an advanced feature beyond the grasp of many spreadsheet users.” ‘259 patent col. 3 ll. 9-11. Accordingly, the Tab Patents explain, prior art spreadsheets require the user to manipulate each individual spreadsheet within a three-dimensional spreadsheet as an individual window in a graphical window environment. By contrast, the Tab Patents recite notebook tabs that allow the user to simply “flip through” several pages of the notebook to rapidly locate information.

In a precedential opinion authored by chief Judge Moore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today vacated and remanded six Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by Intel that found Qualcomm’s patent claims 1–15, 17–25, and 27–33 of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 would have been obvious. While the CAFC agreed with the PTAB’s construction of one of the claims, which Qualcomm had challenged, it ultimately held that the Board violated Qualcomm’s procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for failing to provide the company “adequate notice of and opportunity to respond to its sua sponte claim construction.”