Though litigants routinely enter into stipulated protective orders in the course of discovery that may involve sensitive company information (or even trade secrets), a recent ruling is.
Over the past 20 years, the Federal Circuit’s opinion in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirectTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which defined the plain and ordinary meaning of the.
In
Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network, Appeal No.19-2411, the Federal Circuit held that a claim construction that excludes an embodiment disclosed in the specification is proper where the claim language and intrinsic evidence sufficiently indicate that the disclosed embodiment is not within the scope of the claim.
SIMO Holdings Inc. (SIMO) sued Hong Kong uCloudlink Network (uCloudlink) for patent infringement, asserting claims directed to apparatuses and methods for reducing roaming charges on cellular networks. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on infringement. The district court granted summary judgment of infringement and denied uCloudlink’s cross-motion based on its conclusion that one of the device components recited in the claims (a “non-local calls database”) was not required to establish infringement. The district court reasoned that the contrary construction advanced by uCloudlink “although grammatically appealing, would contradict the s
Now that the new year has started, we’re seeing an uptick in precedential opinions. This week we decided to turn back to patent appeals, taking a look at IPRs and Article III always a.