Federal Circuit Affirms Claim Construction in Favor of Apple

Aug 5, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

On Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Northern District of California jury verdict that Apple did not infringe two patents owned by GPNE Corp. GPNE had sued Apple for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,570,954 and 7,792,432, which are directed to a two-way paging system that operates independently from a telephone system.

The claim language of the asserted patents refers to devices on the network as “nodes.” The common specification, however, does not use the term “node,” but instead refers to devices on the network as “pagers” or “paging units.” The district court adopted a construction of “node” as “pager with two-way data communications capability that transmits wireless data communications on a paging system that operates independently from a telephone network,” rejecting GPNE’s argument that such a construction would be ambiguous because “pager” is not defined. At trial, both parties presented evidence regarding the definition of “pager.” The district court instructed the jury to apply plain and ordinary meaning for terms not otherwise construed.

On appeal, GPNE argued that the non-infringement judgment was based on an erroneous construction of “node.” GPNE argued that (1) construing “node” to be a “pager” was erroneous because the claims do not require a node to be a pager and (2) construing “node” to operate “independently from a telephone network” was erroneous because this limitation is a “single summation sentence” that appears in only one sentence of the Detailed Description. The Federal Circuit held that the use of “pager” in the district court’s construction was not erroneous because the devices in the claimed network are referred to as “pager” or “paging unit” exclusively and repeatedly in the specification. The court also denied GPNE’s argument regarding the “independently from a telephone network” limitation, reasoning that this limitation was from a summation sentence that describes the invention as a whole.

GPNE also argued on appeal that the district court violated O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), by allowing the jury to decide the meaning of “pager.” O2 Micro held that “[w]hen the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to construe it.” O2 Micro at 1362. The Federal Circuit denied GPNE’s argument, stating that the district court is under no obligation to settle every ambiguity stemming from a claim construction. The court held that the district court’s construction of “node” sufficiently clarified the scope of “pager.” The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not ordering a new trial based on Apple’s presentation of evidence of whether iPhones and iPads could be pagers, noting that both parties presented ample evidence on their respective positions on this issue.

GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2016 WL 4073323 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.