Bandai wins on non-infringement but not invalidity at the CAFC

Of the indefinite articles a or an:


McRO offers two arguments that this specification evidence should be interpreted differently. The first argument, which relies on the key definitional sentence,
misreads our precedent and ignores most of the language
in that sentence. According to McRO, the phrase “a vector
from each vertex n on the reference” implies that each vertex on the reference can have multiple corresponding vectors because “it is a well settled rule that the article ‘a’
means one or more and not ‘a single.’” Brief for Appellant
at 24 (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d
1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The patent would have used
the phrase “a single vector,” McRO argues, if it had meant
to require one-to-one correspondence. Id. But McRO misreads KCJ Corp., which explains that “an indefinite article
‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or
more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional
phrase ‘comprising.’” 223 F.3d at 1356 (emphasis added).
This specific canon of claim construction has no bearing
here. And as discussed, the word “a” is hardly the only relevant textual evidence of meaning.




As to invalidity, the district court's reasoning was conclusory:


McRO offers two arguments that this specification evidence should be interpreted differently. The first argument, which relies on the key definitional sentence,
misreads our precedent and ignores most of the language
in that sentence. According to McRO, the phrase “a vector
from each vertex n on the reference” implies that each vertex on the reference can have multiple corresponding vectors because “it is a well settled rule that the article ‘a’
means one or more and not ‘a single.’” Brief for Appellant
at 24 (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d
1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The patent would have used
the phrase “a single vector,” McRO argues, if it had meant
to require one-to-one correspondence. Id. But McRO misreads KCJ Corp., which explains that “an indefinite article
‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or
more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional
phrase ‘comprising.’” 223 F.3d at 1356 (emphasis added).
This specific canon of claim construction has no bearing
here. And as discussed, the word “a” is hardly the only relevant textual evidence of meaning.



Juicy Whip vs. Orange Bang appears in footnote 4:


We deny McRO’s request to direct that the case be
assigned to a different district judge on remand. See Juicy
Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 382 F.3d 1367, 1371, 1373–
74 (Fed. Cir. 2004).