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 …

A Claimed Solution That Merely Aids in Mental Translation Instead of Computer Efficacy is Not an Inventive Concept Under Alice

Authored by Rose Cordero Prey, Michael Block, Jean Dassie and Vaibhav Sharma SYNOPSIS v. MENTOR GRAPHICS: Oct. 17, 2016. Before Lourie, Moore, Chen. The Takeaway: Claims directed to the abstract idea of translating a functional description of a logic circuit used in computers into a hardware component description of the logic …

Jury Findings of Obviousness and Infringement are Upheld Because They are Supported by Substantial Evidence on the Record

Authored by Rose Cordero Prey, Michael Block, Jean Dassie and Vaibhav Sharma APPLE V. SAMSUNG: Oct 7, 2016. En banc. Moore (majority). Prost (dissent), Dyk (dissent), and Reyna (dissent). The Takeaway: On appellate review, the Federal Circuit will defer to the district court’s reasonable fact findings when supported by substantial evidence …

Claims Directed Towards the Abstract Business Practice of Cataloging Labor Data and Which, By Creating a “One Size Fits All” Algorithm, Do Not Show an Inventive Concept Fail The Section 101 Eligibility Test

Authored by Georg Reitboeck, Michael Turner, and Kulsoom Hasan SHORTRIDGE V. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION PAYROLL SERVICE, LLC., No. 2015-1898 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2016) (nonprecedential). On appeal from N.D. Cal. Before O’Malley, Linn, and Stoll (per curium). Procedural Posture: At the district court, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP …