Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment of Non­Infringement for Particle Detector Patents

Jan 29, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

TSI distinguished the accused products by asserting that claim six requires a system that converts a light detector’s output into a digital voltage signal without comparing the light detector’s output to a predetermined reference voltage. While claim six of the originally issued patent did not recite any language or negative limitations regarding a reference voltage, the patent was subject to a reexamination proceeding where claim six was modified to include the limitation: “without using a reference voltage to convert each voltage value signals.” That limitation is echoed by the patent’s specification, which distinguishes the technique of using a reference voltage as a problematic prior art method—since it results in an insufficient signal­to­noise ratio, thereby limiting the device’s sensitivity—that the patent was meant to overcome. Because the court found that TSI’s accused devices utilize a reference voltage in converting the light signals into a digital voltage signal, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non­infringement.

Notably, last year the CAFC affirmed a district court ruling that Lockheed Martin did not infringe the same patent asserted here against TSI. Also, remarkably, the CAFC’s opinion here cited to Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) for the proposition that claim construction is a question of law that reviewed de novo – even though Cybor was overturned just last week by the United States Supreme Court in Teva v. Sandoz, No. 13­854, slip op. (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015), which holds that factual conclusions that underpin claim construction rulings are no longer reviewed de novo but rather for clear error (i.e., claim constructions are now to be given deference on appeal).

Yufa v. TSI, Inc., No. 2015­1063, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

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.