Nazomi v. Microsoft: stipulation gambit fails

This case is one of which the losing party on claim construction
stipulated to a decision (here, one of non-infringement) in order
to appeal to the CAFC. Here, that path did not work out well
for the stipulator.


In light of that construction, Nazomi stipulated to a
lack of literal infringement of the constant pool
limitation. Summary Judgment Order II, 2013 WL 4066847, at *4–
5. And the court found that Nazomi failed to establish how
the accused devices operate d in “substantially the same
way” under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at *5.
Accordingly, the court granted the technology companies’ motion
for summary judgment of noninfringement based on the
constant pool limitation. Id.
The court alternatively granted the technology companies’ motion for summary
judgment of noninfringement based on the indication of a
reference limitation, finding that the accused devices did
not identify a location within the constant pool. Id. at *6.




BUT



We have considered all of Nazomi’s argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1173.Opinion.11-24-2014.1.PDF