CAFC as referee in Wi-Lan

Of interest in the CAFC Wi-Lan case:


The parties asked both district courts to interpret a prior
agreement between Wi-LAN and Ericsson, which
allegedly limited Wi-LAN’s ability to assert
certain patents against Ericsson.
The Texas and Florida courts granted
contradictory summary judgments, which the parties
appeal . For the reasons below, we affirm
the Texas court’s decision and
reverse the Florida court’s decision



And


We are unpersuaded by Ericsson’s argument that a
single sentence in Article III ofthe PCRA trumps the
language of the rest of the contract.
Although the lan-guage in the Non-
Assert Provision is admittedly
impre-cise
,
we must interpret the contract “in the light of the
obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties as
manifested thereby.”
Kass,
696 N.E.2d at 181