Digest of Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 2014-1173 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 26, 2014) (non-precedential); On appeal from N.D. Cal. Before Lourie, Schall, and Dyk.

Procedural Posture: Patent holder Nazomi Communications, Inc. appealed claim constructions and summary judgment of non-infringement. CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: The district court correctly construed the claim term “instructions” used in the asserted hardware patents, which relate to a hardware Java accelerator that expedites the conversion of stack-based instructions into register-based instructions for processing by a central processing unit, as “either stack-based instructions that are to be translated into register-based instructions, or register-based instructions that are input to the CPU pipeline.” The patentee failed to overcome the presumption that the CAFC’s prior construction of the same claim term in a related patent with a similar specification should apply, and that the specification limited the scope of the claimed invention to executing stack-based instructions by translating them into register-based instructions.
  • Claim Construction: The district court correctly construed the claim term “constant pool” used in the asserted software patent, which relates to a method of running the Java programming language that resolves references to a constant pool at runtime, as “a data structure attached to a single loaded class that encodes the names that can be used by any method in the loaded class,” because “constant pool” was a term of art unique to Java defined in the Java Virtual Machine Specification.
  • Claim Construction: The district court correctly construed the claim term “an indication of a reference that may need resolution” as used in the asserted Java software patent, as “an identification of a location (e.g., an address) within the constant pool that stores the name, or ‘label,’ of a reference that needs resolution.” The plain language of the claim and the specification provided that an “indication of a reference” requires an address that both directs the system to a location within the constant pool and is distinct from the “resolution data field” showing whether a reference has been resolved.
  • Infringement—Doctrine of Equivalents: The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Nazomi’s doctrine of equivalents arguments with respect to the claim limitation “instructions” used in the asserted Java hardware patents, because the patentee failed to comply with the Patent Local Rules by only providing boilerplate language in its infringement contentions concerning this theory of infringement.
  • Infringement—Doctrine of Equivalents: The district court did not err in granting summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of the asserted software patent. Nazomi failed to establish how the accused devices operated in substantially the same way as the “constant pool” claimed by the patent, and the accused devices did not identify a location within the constant pool, as required by the “indication of a reference” claim limitation.