LG ELECTRONICS loses appeal at CAFC in Core Wireless case

LG lost its appeal from ED Texas:


LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) appeals the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ decisions
(1) denying summary judgment that claims 8 and 9 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476 (“’476 patent”) and claims 11
and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020 (“’020 patent”) are
directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101; (2) denying judgment as matter of law that
U.S. Patent No. 6,415,164 (“Blanchard”) anticipates the
asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and (3) denying
judgment as a matter of law that the claims are not
infringed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.




AND



For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court’s denial of summary judgment that the claims are
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We also affirm the
district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law that
the claims are anticipated by Blanchard and the claims
are not infringed.



Judge Wallach dissented in part:



I disagree, however, with the majority’s ruling
affirming the District Court’s construction of the “unlaunched
state” limitation. See ’476 patent col. 6 ll. 2−3;
’020 patent col. 5 l. 43. I would find the term “unlaunched
state” to mean “not running,” as proposed by
Appellant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”), and remand the
case to the District Court for review of whether this
construction alters its findings on infringement and
anticipation.1 I therefore respectfully dissent-in-part
from today’s judgment. I review the legal standard for
claim construction and then turn to my analysis.