Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

IP Litigation

Claim construction not inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the term “gateway”

March 6, 2014

IP Litigation

Claim construction not inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the term “gateway”

March 6, 2014

Back to Fish's Litigation Blog

 

Fed. Cir. affirms stipulated judgment of noninfringement.  The term “intelligent gateway” was properly construed to mean “a network element that transfers information to and from a mobile network and another network external to the mobile network” because of technical dictionary definition evidence and related foreign prosecution history statements (which the Fed. Cir. relied on “with the requisite caution”), which confirmed the consistency of the construction with the ordinary meaning of “gateway” in the phrase “intelligent gateway.” 

Starhome GmbH v.  AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., ___ F.3d___ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2014) (Moore, SCHALL, Reyna) (D. Del.: Sleet) (1 of 5 stars)

A figure in the patent that seemed to show a gateway within a single network, did not actually do so because it was simply a simplified form of another figure that showed multiple networks, and it was not a separate embodiment.  Claim differentiation did not apply because the contrasted claims each recited a specific type of external network and thus differed in scope from the asserted claim.

Note:  This was a fairly typical case in which the specification could have supported either construction, but the ordinary meaning served as an anchor from which the patentee could not pull away.

Related Tags

appellate
CAFC Summary
Claim Construction

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *