Case: Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 2013-1057, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from C.D. Cal. Before Rader, Dyk, and Taranto.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed the ruling of summary judgment of noninfringement. CAFC vacated and remanded.

  • Claim Construction: The district court incorrectly construed “images depicting views of objects in a geographic area, the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area” as “vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views.” The record showed that “views being substantially elevations of the objects” referred to “front and side views of the objects,” and therefore did not exclude curved or spherical images that are substantially front or side views. The district court erred by (1) effectively reading “substantially” out of the claims; (2) relying too heavily on extrinsic evidence to construe “substantially elevations”; and (3) failing to sufficiently consider the intrinsic evidence, including embodiments described in the specification, the lack of a limitation on how the “images depicting views being substantially elevations” may be created, and the absence of a clear and unmistakable disavowal of curved or spherical images.