Digest of Mformation Tech.s, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., No. 2012-1679; 2013-1123 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from N.D. Cal. Before Prost, Chief Judge, Schall, and Hughes.

Procedural Posture: Patent holder Mformation Technologies appealed JMOL of non-infringement. CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: Mformation Technologies argued that the district court improperly introduced a new claim construction post-verdict that had not been presented to the jury. The district court’s claim construction as clarified in its order for post-trial briefing required that the “establishing a connection” sub-step be completed, and not merely commenced, before the “transmitting the contents of the mailbox” sub-step may begin. The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not introduce a new claim construction post-verdict by introducing an order requirement to the sub-steps of the claims. Rather, the court merely clarified the construction that had been presented to the jury. Further, the district court’s claim construction was correct, as a sub-step order was inherently required by other sub-steps of the claim. Finally, under the correct claim construction, the court correctly found that defendant’s process did not infringe the claims.