View previous updates...

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Incorporated (No. 2014-1040, 10/14/14) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes)

October 14, 2014 2:44 PM

Prost, C. J. Affirming judgment that claims were indefinite and invalid. "[B]oth 'program recognition device' and 'program loading device' are means-plus-function terms and ... the specification does not disclose the requisite corresponding structures...." However, claim language "by means of" did not trigger a presumption that the claim was subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (2010).

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (No. 2013-1419, 10/14/14) (Lourie, Linn, O'Malley)

October 14, 2014 10:20 AM

O'Malley, J. Affirming jury verdict of willful infringement of one patent and noninfringement of another patent, denial of a new trial, and award of prejudgment interest, but vacating the district court's denial of "prevailing party" status to the patentee and remanding.

Under the general verdict rule, if the jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement where there were several arguments of noninfringement, and there was no good faith argument that one limitation properly construed was met, "even if the district court erred in its construction of the other challenged limitations, the result the jury reached—the finding of non-infringement—would not change." However, "[w]e specifically conclude that Verizon does not ... stand for the proposition that a general verdict of non-infringement may be affirmed upon a decision that the district court's challenged construction of even one claim term relating to a single claim limitation is correct. That is so only, where, as here, there is no argument and no evidence that substantial evidence might have supported a finding of non-infringement under the first challenged construction which we consider."

Regarding willfulness, exclusion from evidence of the testimony of the defendant's Chief Engineer that the defendant believed in good faith that its products were non-infringing and had obtained reexamination from the PTO was not error. "As for [his] personal beliefs regarding non-infringement, the fact that they were beliefs formed by a lay person without the benefit of the court's claim construction determinations rendered them of little probative value and potentially prejudicial."

Where the patentee obtained a judgment of willful infringement of one patent and an award of damages, the patentee was the "prevailing party" even though it also lost on its infringement claim under another patent; however, that "does not automatically entitle it to any particular level of fees.".

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

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.