ARTICLE
26 November 2021

Patentee Cannot Use Inconsistent Claim Interpretations To Avoid Anticipation And Argue Infringement

WT
Winston Taylor

Contributor

Whether you're leading the way, disrupting an industry, entering a new phase of growth, or launching a defining product—we're in the room with you. In the action. Sleeves rolled up.

With a rich history spanning both sides of the Atlantic, we are present in the major commercial centers that matter to our clients: the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Combining scale with the speed clients demand, our defining capabilities include major litigation, critical transactions, strategic IP, and private wealth.

Our team of over 1,400 lawyers works hand-in-hand across markets, sectors, practice areas, and client teams. All-in problem solvers, we bring the creativity to think differently, and the pragmatism to get things done when it counts the most.

Embedded in your business and sharing your ambition, we take the work personally. Shaping what we do and how we do it around your goals and needs, always one step ahead of the moment.

The Federal Circuit, considering only one patent on appeal, affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL of invalidity and reversed the district court's denial of JMOL of no infringement.
United States Intellectual Property
Winston Taylor are most popular:
  • within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)

CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., Nos. 2020-1817, 2020-1818 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2021)

The Federal Circuit, considering only one patent on appeal, affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL of invalidity and reversed the district court's denial of JMOL of no infringement. The Federal Circuit focused on the patentee's inconsistent interpretation of a claim limitation for purposes of invalidity and infringement.

The district court construed the claim limitation "switching a controller off" to mean that a controller itself was switched to a "nonoperating state." A jury rendered a verdict of infringement and no invalidity under this construction. The district court then denied the accused infringer's motions for JMOL of invalidity and no infringement.

After affirming the district court's construction, the Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence did not support the jury's verdict of infringement. Nothing in the record identified a controller switched to a "nonoperating state" in the accused product. Similarly, the prior art at issue did not disclose a controller in a "nonoperating state," and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL of invalidity.

Of note to the Federal Circuit were the patentee's inconsistent positions regarding "switching a controller off." The patentee argued in its brief that the controller itself need not be in a "nonoperating state" when discussing infringement, but the patentee also argued that the patent-at-issue required the controller to be switched to a "nonoperating state" when defending the jury's verdict of no invalidity. The Federal Circuit noted that the patentee could not twist the patent one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.

Read the full decision here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More