The court rejected five claim constructions determined by the district court, vacated the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, and remanded to the district court for further. The claims at issue involved interface devices for communication between a host device and a data transmit/receive device. In reversing the five constructions, the court reviewed the claims and the specification and followed the principles that words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary meaning in the context of the claim and the whole patent document” and that “the construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Here, the court reviewed both the claim language and the specification to find that the district court’s constructions were incorrect.
Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., Case No. 2014-1110 (February 2, 2015); Opinion by: Taranto, joined by Schall and Chen; Appealed From: District Court for the District of Columbia, Collyer, J. Read the full opinion here.
If you have questions or need more information, please contact email@example.com.