Cardsoft reviewed by CAFC post-Teva; same result because no factual findings
Following our first decision in this case, the Supreme
Court held that we must review a district court’s ultimate
interpretation of a claim term, as well as its interpretations of
“evidence intrinsic to the patent,” de novo and its
subsidiary factual findings about extrinsic evidence for
clear error. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
135 S.Ct. 831, 841–42 (2015). The Court also vacated
and remanded our Cardsoft decision for further considera-
tion in light of this new standard of review.
CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 135 S.
Ct. 2891 (2015). Because this case does not involve the factual findings
to which we owe deference under Teva, we again reverse the district
court’s construction of the term “virtual