Digest of In Re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent LitigationIn, No. 2014-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2105) (precedential). On appeal from D.D.C. Before Taranto, Schall and Chen.
Procedural Posture: Patent holder Papst Licensing appealed summary judgment of non-infringement and underlying claim constructions. CAFC vacated summary judgment.
- Claim Construction: The CAFC reviewed the claim constructions de novo under the approach mandated in Teva Pharm. U.S.A. Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 840-42 (2015), because “the district court relied only on the intrinsic record…and neither party challenges that approach.” Although the district court received a tutorial from the parties’ experts in preparation for claim construction, it asked the experts to be neutral and only address the background of the technology and how the claimed inventions work, not whether any particular term in the patent or prior art has a particular meaning in the field. The district court declined to admit expert testimony or to rely on an expert declaration from Papst in conducting claim construction.
- Waiver: Papst did not waive its argument that the district court incorrectly construed the “data transmit/receive device” by filing a motion to correct an error in the construction unrelated to the “when connected” language without addressing the already-contested aspects. Papst had already opposed the construction, and was not required to state is opposition again.