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

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.