Friday, April 01, 2016

SimpleAir loses at CAFC

The bottom line:

For the reasons set forth below, we determine the district
court erred in its constructions of “a data channel”
and “whether said devices are online or offline from a data
channel associated with each device,”1 and conclude that
no reasonable jury could find infringement under the
correct constructions. We therefore vacate the jury verdicts
and associated district court orders and judgments,
and remand with instructions to enter judgment of noninfringement
in favor of Google.

Yes, Teva is cited

The ultimate construction of claim language is a question
of law reviewed de novo, based upon underlying
factual determinations reviewed for clear error. Teva
Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837–39
(2015). “[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence
intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specifications,
along with the patent’s prosecution history), the
judge’s determination [as to claim construction] will
amount solely to a determination of law, and the Court of
Appeals will review that construction de novo.” Id. at 841.
“If, on the other hand, a district court resolves factual
disputes over evidence extrinsic to the patent, we ‘review
for clear error those factual findings that underlie a
district court’s claim construction.’” Cardsoft, LLC v.
VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 842). “[I]t is not enough that
the district court may have heard extrinsic evidence
during a claim construction proceeding—rather, the
district court must have actually made a factual finding
in order to trigger Teva’s deferential review.” Id.
Where an infringement verdict relies on an incorrect
claim construction, and no reasonable jury could have
found infringement under the proper claim construction,
this court may reverse the district court’s determination
with respect to JMOL without remand. Finisar Corp. v.
DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).


Post a Comment

<< Home