Digest of Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 2013-1212 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from E.D. Va. Before Newman, Clevenger, and Reyna.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement on all four asserted patents. For three of the patents, CAFC agreed with the district court’s construction of the claims, but reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded. For the fourth patent, CAFC found that the district court erred in construing the claims, vacated the grant of summary judgment, and remanded.

  • Claim Construction: In the context of the asserted patents, which were directed to helping internet service providers track customer usage, the district court correctly construed the term “enhance” to mean “to apply a number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion.” The specification repeatedly recited the advantages of distributed enhancement, and the CAFC held that in this context, “distributed” means that the network usage records are processed close to their sources before being transmitted to a centralized manager.
  • Claim Construction: The district court correctly construed the term “completing” to mean “enhance a record until all required fields have been populated.”
  • Infringement: The district court erred in granting summary judgment of noninfringement by disregarding plaintiff’s foreign marketing materials. Product documentation is not irrelevant simply because it is presented to foreign entities. Further, the court erred in resolving factual disputes against the non-movant.
  • Claim Construction: The district court erred in construing the term “a single record represent[ing] each of the plurality of services” to mean “one record that includes customer usage data for each of the plurality of services used by the customer on the network.” The term does not simply encompass a record in which usage data is separately represented, but includes a record in which usage data is represented in the aggregate.

Newman, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

  • Claim Construction: The district court correctly construed the term “a single record represent[ing] each of the plurality of services” to mean “one record that includes customer usage data for each of the plurality of services used by the customer on the network.”
  • Infringement: The district court correctly granted summary judgment of noninfringement regarding the patent having the term “a single record represent[ing] each of the plurality of services.”