TESSERA, INC. appeal of ITC decision to CAFC fails

Of the Tessara case at the ITC, the CAFC noted:

Because the Commission’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not
contrary to law, this court affirms the determination of no
violation with respect to the ’106 patent, and vacates as
moot the Commission’s decision regarding the ’977 and
’627 patents, which have now expired.

Tessera had argued:

Tessera argues that the Commission erred in finding
that the accused wBGA products do not infringe claim 1 of
the ’106 patent. Specifically, Tessera argues that the
Commission erred when it found that the “top layer” of
claim 1 cannot include the solder mask layer of the ac-
cused wBGA products. In doing so, according to Tessera,
the Commission improperly modified its construction of
“top layer.” The Commission construed “top layer” to
mean “a layer disposed on the active side of the chip and
which carries the terminals.” Final Determination at 20.
Because the construction does not explicitly exclude
“solder mask,” Tessera argues that the Commission erred
by refusing to consider the accused solder mask layer as
part of the claimed “top layer.”

Of the intervenors:

Intervenors argue that the Commission incorrectly
found that the asserted claims of the ’106 patent were not
anticipated by U.S. Patent Nos. 5,136,336 (“Worp”),
5,218,759 (“Juskey”), and 4,868,349 (“Chia”). Tessera
responds that numerous claim elements are absent from each reference.


AND

To invalidate the asserted claims of the ’106 patent on
the grounds of anticipation, the Intervenors must prove
by clear and convincing evidence that a single prior art
reference discloses each and every limitation of the ’106
patent. The ALJ’s detailed and well reasoned analysis of
the asserted prior art and his determination that the ’106
patent is not anticipated is supported by substantial
record evidence. This court therefore affirms the Com-
mission’s determination that the ’106 patent is not antici-
pated by Worp, Juskey, or Chia.


The conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, this court finds that the
Commission provided a sufficient basis for finding no
section 337 violation and its actions were not arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law. Because the Commission’s decision
regarding the ’106 patent was supported by substantial
evidence and contained no errors of law, this court affirms
that portion of the Final Determination. Because the ’977
and ’627 patents have now expired, this court vacates that
portion of the Final Determination and remands with
instructions to dismiss as moot the portion of the com-
plaint relating to those patents.