Collegenet v. Applyyourself

This case involved two patents which possessed claims related to an online service which reduced the difficulty for college applicants to apply to college.

At trial, a jury found Applyyourself infringed one of Collegenet's patents, but the district court granted a JMOL and a new trial. As to US 6,460,042, the CAFC found the district misconstrued a claim term, and reversed the JMOL and reinstated the jury verdict (Applyyourself loses).

Of interest to me, the case involves the use of a "request for admission" as evidence. Unfortunately, the CAFC's treatment of the evidentiary issue is ambiguous.

Phillips v. AWH is cited (for its citation to Innova, 381 F.3d 1111 [as noted on this blog, one could see what was happening in Innova a mile away!]). Teleflex v. Ficosa, 299 F.3d 1313 is also cited, about not importing limitations from the specification into the claims. There is a discussion of the meaning of the word "a", with a citation to Tate, 279 F.3d 1357. There is also discussion of "pointless formality," with a citation to 241 F.3d 707. There is even discussion of the word "comprising," with a cite to Georgia-Pacific, 195 F.3d 1322.