Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 APRIL 2016

In Determining Whether To Apply Intervening Rights, Courts Must Account For Differences Between Claim Construction Standards

In this case, the patentee added the modifier "seek" to the claimed "acoustic noise" limitation during a reexamination proceeding.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Convolve, Inc. et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp., et al.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again reversed a district court's summary judgment determination (on remand) that liability was precluded by intervening rights and found that district courts must account for the differences between claim construction standards when relying on the findings of an examiner during reexamination. Convolve, Inc. et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp., et al., Case No. 14-1732 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 10, 2016) (Hughes, J).

The present case was back before the Federal Circuit after a district court, on remand, granted summary judgment of no infringement a second time, albeit on alternative grounds. While the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment of no direct infringement by Seagate (one of the named defendants), it reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement by Compaq on nine of the 12 claims, finding that the district court's claim

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from