Digest of Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2013-1496 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from D. Del. Before Moore, Mayer, and Chen.

Procedural Posture: Patent holder appealed summary judgment of non-infringement. CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: CAFC held that the patent holder’s stipulated construction from a prior litigation was a binding disclaimer. The patent holder had submitted the stipulated construction as part of an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) during both the reexamination of a patent-in-suit and prosecution of a patent-in-suit. Further, during both PTO proceedings the patent holder did not “rescind or redact” this stipulated construction. The court found that it would be natural for both the PTO and the public to rely on that stipulation in determining the scope of the claimed invention. Further, the court articulated that an applicant’s remarks submitted with an IDS can be the basis for limiting claim scope and that a stipulation of claim constructions is different than a piece of prior art submitted with an IDS.
  • Waiver: Following the district court’s ruling on summary judgment, patent holder filed an emergency motion for reconsideration, which was denied. CAFC affirmed the denial of reconsideration, finding that the patent holder waived any alternative theory of infringement advocated in its motion by failing to present and support it at the summary judgment stage as new theories of infringement cannot be raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. The court held that a party gets one “bite at the apple”; it cannot change theories and try again on reconsideration.

Ian Moore