Main Menu

The court applied the rule that arguments that are “not appropriately developed in a party’s briefing may be deemed waived” to hold that judgment of no infringement as a matter of law was warranted under the modified construction for the term “virtual machine” (where the jury had held that there was infringement under the construction rejected by the Federal Circuit).  The patentee did not substantively respond in its responsive brief to the accused infringer’s, Verifone’s, argument that, under the Federal Circuits’ construction, there could be no infringement because of the manner in which the accused devices operated. 

CardSoft v. Verifone, Inc., Case No. 2014-1135 (October 17, 2014); Opinion by: Prost, joined by Taranto, Hughes; Appealed From: Eastern District of Texas, Payne, Mag. J.To read the full opinion, click here.

If you have questions or need more information, please contact info@mckoolsmith.com.

Back to Page