Peter Boesen loses to Garmin
The case involved summary judgment of anticipation, which was affirmed.
The CAFC noted:
A patent claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found in a single prior art reference. 35 U.S.C. § 102. Although anticipation is a question of fact, summary judgment may be appropriate if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1349 (2010).
As to claim language:
“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The district court correctly explained that as long as the Acura navigation system can – and does – perform the claimed input method, it is of no consequence that it can also perform other input methods. Contrary to Dr. Boesen’s arguments, the claims have no other language to suggest that the input must always come via the on-screen keyboard. Moreover, even if the preamble were to be limiting, this would not narrow the scope of the claims in a way that avoids invalidity: the Acura navigation system still practices these claims when a user inputs information using the on-screen keyboard, followed by pressing an on-screen acceptance key such as “done” or “find” which dismisses the input field.
Axiomatic:
It is axiomatic that a product which would “infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier than the date of the invention.” Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc., 827 F.2d 744, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
AND
It is axiomatic that the claims define the metes and bounds of the invention. Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridge- port Fittings, Inc., 632 F.3d 1246, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The CAFC noted:
A patent claim is anticipated if each and every limitation is found in a single prior art reference. 35 U.S.C. § 102. Although anticipation is a question of fact, summary judgment may be appropriate if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1349 (2010).
As to claim language:
“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The district court correctly explained that as long as the Acura navigation system can – and does – perform the claimed input method, it is of no consequence that it can also perform other input methods. Contrary to Dr. Boesen’s arguments, the claims have no other language to suggest that the input must always come via the on-screen keyboard. Moreover, even if the preamble were to be limiting, this would not narrow the scope of the claims in a way that avoids invalidity: the Acura navigation system still practices these claims when a user inputs information using the on-screen keyboard, followed by pressing an on-screen acceptance key such as “done” or “find” which dismisses the input field.
Axiomatic:
It is axiomatic that a product which would “infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier than the date of the invention.” Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc., 827 F.2d 744, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
AND
It is axiomatic that the claims define the metes and bounds of the invention. Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridge- port Fittings, Inc., 632 F.3d 1246, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home