Case: E2Interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc., No. 2013-1151 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2014) (non-precedential). On appeal from W.D. Wis. Before Dyk, Moore, and Wallach.

Procedural Posture: Defendant appealed the district court’s judgment of infringement based on the court’s construction of certain claim terms. CAFC reversed.

  • Claim Construction: The district court erred in concluding that the asserted claims do not require using the “terminal identifier” to determine if the terminal is authorized to make the requested transaction. To overcome the examiner’s rejection during reexamination, the patentee argued that the prior art did not disclose use of the terminal identifier in determining terminal authorization. This comprised a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of claim scope, which the examiner expressly relied on those arguments to confirm patentability.