Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit held “that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be considered for claim construction and relied upon to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer.” Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple Inc., Appeal 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017). In so holding, the court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Apple Inc’s AirPlay feature does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412. Critical to the district court’s judgment was its claim construction of the limitation “wherein the CPP logic is invoked” to “require only the CPP logic is invoked.” (emphasis added). The Patent Owner’s arguments presented during the pre-institution phase of the IPR proceeding compelled the district court to construe the claim so narrowly that the court also concluded that the accused AirPlay feature does not infringe.
More Posts
Pay-Per-Click Patent Found Ineligible Under Section 101
Teaching Away for Dummies
Secondary Considerations Change Panel’s Mind after Institution
Analogous Art: A Tale of Two Decisions
For CBM Standing, Is “Incidental To” a Financial Product or Service Enough?
Squeezing the ‘Antibody Exception’ to Written Description into a Corner
PTAB Provides Procedural Guidance with Five Precedential Opinions
CAFC Puts the “Reasonable” Back in the BRI Standard
Federal Circuit Provides Further Guidance on Administrative Procedures For Motions to Amend Claims
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org