PTAB Cannot Treat Pre-AIA Means-Plus-Function Limitations As Purely Functional Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard

IPCOM GMBH & CO. v. HTC CORPORATION: July 7, 2017. Before Prost, Clevenger, Chen. Takeaway: Pre-AIA §112 ¶ 6 (means-plus-function) claim construction analysis requires that the Board not only identify the particular claimed function, but also identify the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform that function in the specification. …

Lack of Meaningful Competition Between the Parties Weighed Against Conclusion of Irreparable Harm, Leading to Denial of Permanent Injunction

Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, INC., No. 2016-1585, 2016-1618 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2017) (precedential).  On appeal from E.D. Tex.  Before Reyna, Hughes and Stoll. Takeaway: Lack of meaningful competition between the parties weighs against conclusion of irreparable harm. Procedural Posture: Nichia, the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, …

CAFC Concludes that the District Court Correctly Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Properly Upheld the Jury’s Verdict of Noninfringement Where the Jury Did Not Err in Finding that Defendant’s Devices Did Not Infringe the Claims in Plaintiff’s Patent

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L, v. APPLE INC.: April 14, 2017.  Before O’Malley, Bryson, and Wallach. (precedential). Takeaway: CAFC affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s JMOL motion upholding the non-infringement verdict where substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the accused devices did not use a mobile station to select which …

Potential Error in Jury Verdict with Respect to Non-Infringement Is Harmless Where Invalidity Is Affirmed

TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC.: March 21, 2017. Before Prost, Clevenger, Reyna. Takeaway: A party cannot argue on appeal that claim terms have “more than one ordinary meaning” if the argument was not raised in the first instance at trial. Potential error by a jury regarding non-infringement is harmless where …

The CAFC Vacated the Northern District of California’s Claim Construction Because the District Court Improperly Limited the Claims Based on Prosecution History Disclaimer

Tech Properties v. Huawei (2016-1306), March 3, 2017.  Before Judges Moore, Wallach, and Chen. Takeaway: A district court may only limit claims based on prosecution disclaimer to the extent that the patentee makes clear and unmistakable disclaimers. If a district court limits the claims of a patent more narrowly than …