The court affirmed the district court’s holding that new claims obtained in a reexamination were not substantially identical to the original claims. The court found that the claim at issue was narrowed, but for different reasons than those presented by Qualcomm. The amendment to the claim was narrowing because it limited the claim to “another” vehicle. Because Qualcomm had divested itself of the accused part of its business prior to the reexamination certificate being issued, Qualcomm could not infringe these new claims.
R+L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 2014-1718 (September 17, 2015); Opinion by: O’Malley, joined by Newman and Wallach; Appealed From: District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Beckwith, J. Read the full opinion here.
