Blog March 23, 2020
No Express Disclaimer Necessary to Limit Means-Plus-Function Claims to Embodiments Disclosed in the Specification
- Person title
MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple, Inc., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2015) (Taranto, Bryson, CHEN) (D. Del.: Robinson) (2 of 5 stars)
In a four-patent case, Federal Circuit determines that one patent is not infringed, that two others are invalid, but vacates a judgment of noninfringement on the fourth.
Affirmance of '078 validity judgment: Testimony from MobileMedia's expert that combining two references would have been beyond the technical ability of a skilled artisan was sufficient to support the jury's determination that the claim is not invalid.
Reversal of '078 infringement judgment: The district court erred in identifying structure corresponding to the claimed "means for processing and storing" image information. The surrounding claim language required these "means" be inside a device's camera unit, and the specification was consistent. That the specification did not expressly limit components in the camera unit to performing only those functions did not change this conclusion. "The scope of a means-plus-function limitation is outlined not by what the specification and prosecution history do not say, but rather by what they do say." Slip op. at 16. Because the camera modules in Apple's accused products have no internal memory, no reasonable jury could find infringement.
Reversal of '068 validity judgment: The sole distinction between the claim and prior art was that a certain action occurred after one button press instead of two. MobileMedia's expert presented only conclusory statements that a skilled artisan would not have made that modification. By contrast, Apple's expert presented detailed reasons why such a modification would have been obvious. On that record, no reasonable jury could find non-obviousness.
Affirmance of '075 obviousness JMOL: The dispute turned on whether there was a motivation to combine parts of two technical standards. Apple's expert gave detailed reasons why the skilled artisan would combine them, while MobileMedia's expert presented only conclusory testimony that focused on only one of the standards without addressing the combination of the two.
Vacatur of '231 noninfringement SJ: The district court erred in construing the phrase "to change a volume of the generated alert sound" such that it did not encompass stopping the sound entirely. The specification taught that an alert's volume could be changed either by reducing its volume or by stopping it entirely. That a dependent claim addressed "stop[ping] the sound" without referencing the "change a volume" limitation did not mean that "stopping the sound" and "changing the volume" are mutually exclusive. Further, to interpret "chang[ing] a volume" so that it did not include "stop[ping] the sound" would improperly exclude a preferred embodiment. Because the summary judgment of noninfringement was based on an erroneous claim construction, the Federal Circuit vacated.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Article December 27, 2022
Senior Principal John Dragseth Authors IPWatchdog Article "Top Federal Circuit Decisions of 2022 That No One Told You About"
Blog July 6, 2021
Federal Circuit Finds Digital Camera an Abstract Idea
Blog June 24, 2021
Legal Alert: What to Know about the Supreme Court's Arthrex Decision
Blog June 22, 2021
Legal Alert: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in U.S. v. Arthrex
Article January 4, 2021
Fish Attorneys Author Law360 Article, "Lessons For 2021 From Fed. Circ. Post-Grant Review Cases"
Blog November 13, 2020
Federal Circuit Panel Holds Hatch-Waxman Venue Under the Second Prong of § 1400(b) is Based on Actions Related to ANDA Submission
Q&A November 12, 2020
Q&A with Riqui Bonilla and Nitika Gupta Fiorella for Corporate Counsel Business Journal
Article September 1, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Biosimilar Development Article, "An Update On 2020 U.S. Biosimilars Regulation & Litigation"
Article July 7, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Article in Bloomberg Law, "INSIGHT: SCOTUS Decision on Computer Fraud Act Could Impact Trade Secrets"
Blog June 26, 2020