The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that uCloudlink is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement after rejecting the district court’s claim construction which did not require a "non-local calls database." Some embodiments of SIMO Holdings' invention included a feature not present in every disclosed embodiment, i.e., the "non-local calls database" in the wireless communication client. The district court’s interpretation relied on the Federal Circuit’s deci

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment that 10X Genomics infringed the patents of Bio-Rad Laboratories and remanded for a new trial on this issue. A key point relating to infringement was whether or not the preamble of Bio-Rad's two patents (8,304,193 patent and 8,329,407) are limiting. 10X argued that, under the correct claim construction, the preambles limit the claims to methods of conducting reactions inside a microfluidic syste

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's obviousness determination based on its construction of the claimed expression "an amount effective to extend the time to disease progression in the human patient." With regard to the inconsistent positions taken by Genetech during prosecution and in the inter partes review, the Federal Circuit stated that: "Genentech interpreted its own claim language [during prosecution], based on its o

In concluding that the claim term "an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information" in U.S. Patent No. 8,191,091 is limited to all digital signals contrary to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's interpretation, the Federal Circuit stated that: "Even where “prosecution history statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disavowal, they do inform the claim construction.” "[T]he Board erred by effectively requiring the prosecution history e

The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's obviousness determination based on an erroneous construction of the claimed expression "treating a subject having onychomycosis." According to the CAFC, the Board's construction was inconsistent with the prosecution history (including statements made to overcome a rejection) and statements in the specification (including some relating to the object of the invention) which supported a narrower interpretation. Read

A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment (by asserting that the term "brewing chamber" means a fully-enclosed space in this case) is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support. There is no precise rule or formula for deciding whether a case is exceptional [for purposes of awarding attorney's fees]. An exceptional case is “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litig