IP Innovation v. eCollege: Dist Ct claim construction upheld, plaintiff loses

In the nonprecedential IP Innovation v eCollege, the decision uses the words patent troll. IP Innovation lost on infringement, both literal and DOE (yes, Festo is cited), but did not have to pay attorneys fees. (The CAFC noted IP Innovation had a plausible infringement theory.)

For the second step of the infringement analysis, the CAFC cited N.Am. Container v. Plastipak, 415 F.3d 1335.

Of claim construction, the quote (bedrock principle...) found in Innova, 381 F.3d 1111 reproduced in Phillips, is cited. I cited Innova myself in discussing Quillen/Webster, who ignored the bedrock principle in their analysis of patent grant rates.