In\u00a0WI-LAN USA, INC.,\u00a0v. Apple Inc., [2015-1256] (August 1, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of\u00a0U.S. Patent Nos.\u00a08,311,040 and 8,315,640. \u00a0At issue on appeal were two issues of claim construction: “specified connection” in the ‘040 patent, and “UL connection” in the ‘640 patent.<\/p>\n
The parties disputed whether the term \u201cspecified connection\u201d excludes embodiments\u00a0where an intermediary device can maintain only\u00a0one specified connection. The Federal Circuit found the claims inconclusive, and turned to the specification, whose\u00a0consistent descriptions\u00a0of multiple specified connections, suggested\u00a0that the patent\u2019s claims do not encompass an\u00a0embodiment contrary to these descriptions. \u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that consistent use of a term in a particular way in the\u00a0specification can inform the proper construction of that\u00a0term. Here, the Federal Circuit found that\u00a0the\u00a0specification\u2019s consistent references to multiple \u201cspecified\u00a0connections\u201d to weigh in favor of a construction\u00a0excluding embodiments where the intermediary node is
\ncapable of maintaining only one \u201cspecified connection.\u201d \u00a0The Federal Circuit also noted that the claims discussed allocating bandwidth, which suggested multiple connections over which the bandwidth is distributed.<\/p>\n
The parties disputed\u00a0the whether the term UL connection meant a\u00a0connection between a user\u00a0device and its intermediary node or the connection\u00a0between an intermediary node and its base station. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that\u00a0the specification never
\nused the term \u201cUL connections.\u201d \u00a0Turning to the specification as a whole, the Federal Circuit found that the\u00a0context required it\u00a0to construe UL connection to refer to the intermediary\u00a0node\u2019s connections with user devices, not the base\u00a0station, for three reasons. \u00a0IT was the only construction\u00a0that squared with: (1) the scheme the patent sets out\u00a0where the base station allocates bandwidth to its intermediary-node connections and the intermediary nodes\u00a0allocate bandwidth to their user connections, (2) the\u00a0network architecture the specification describes, and (3)\u00a0representations Wi-LAN made in prosecution.<\/p>\n
Because it\u00a0affirmed both constructions against Wi-LAN\u2019s challenges, the Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In\u00a0WI-LAN USA, INC.,\u00a0v. Apple Inc., [2015-1256] (August 1, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of\u00a0U.S. Patent Nos.\u00a08,311,040 and 8,315,640. \u00a0At issue on appeal were two issues of claim construction: “specified connection” in the ‘040 patent, and “UL … Continue reading