InterDigital loses at the CAFC
CJ Prost began the opinion:
InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Tech-nology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) appeal from the final determination of the United States International Trade Commission (“Com-mission”) finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. See Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (Dec. 19, 2013) (“Commission Decision”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
As to the review by the CAFC of the ITC:
We review the Commission’s legal rulings de novo and its findings of fact for substantial evidence. Osram GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In construing claims, we rely primarily on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We may also seek guidance from extrinsic evidence such as expert testimony, diction-aries, and treatises. Id. at 1317–18.
In the end, InterDigital’s argument that the carries-no-data limitation applies only to a preferred embodi-ment, although not trivially dismissed, is insufficient to overcome this court’s prior conclusions, a proper reading of the specification, and InterDigital’s own expert testi-mony.
Second, InterDigital argues that “the Commission’s construction improperly excludes an express preferred embodiment.” Appellants’ Br. 44. The Power Ramp-Up Patents’ specification expressly incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,799,010 (“’010 patent”). According to InterDigital, in the ’010 patent “the short codes are modu-lated by ‘data’ in the sense that the selection from among a known set of short codes could indicate [information].” Id. at 45 (emphasis added). InterDigital then argues that, in that sense, the accused products do the same thing, and should be found to infringe.
Reuters noted of the decision:
InterDigital Inc, a patent licensing firm, lost an infringement fight on Wednesday as a U.S. appeals court ruled that wireless phones made by Nokia, since purchased by Microsoft, and ZTE Corp do not infringe on InterDigital patents.