Core wireless licensing

Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Apple, Inc. Core Wireless Licensing, S. Justia Opinion Summary Core sued Apple, alleging infringement of two patents concerning technology for wireless communications in a digital network. Opinion Annotation. Download PDF. The parties' dispute boils down to whether the status bar is part of the accused "home screen. In the LG user manual, the status bar is the first section of the view identified as the home screen. The jury was also entitled to credit Dr. Zeger's testimony on this issue.

Indeed, Dr. Rhyne admitted that if the status bar is part of the home screen, the user can reach the accused application summary window directly from the main menu. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury's finding of infringement. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment that the claims are ineligible under 35 U. We also affirm the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law that the claims are anticipated by Blanchard and the claims are not infringed.

I agree with the majority that the U. See Core Wireless Licensing S. LG Elecs. I disagree, however, with the majority's ruling affirming the District Court's construction of the "unlaunched state" limitation. See ' patent col. I would find the term "unlaunched state" to mean "not running," as proposed by Appellant LG Electronics, Inc. I review the legal standard for claim construction and then turn to my analysis.

Claim construction focuses on the wording of the claims, "read in view of the specification, of which they are a part. AWH Corp. Prosecution history may also be examined to supply additional context to support a claim term's intended meaning. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. Lifescan, Inc. While courts may consider extrinsic evidence in claim construction, "such evidence is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record.

Extrinsic evidence may not be used "to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence. The District Court did not analyze extrinsic evidence in making its determination. When the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent, that determination will amount solely to a determination of law that we review de novo.

See Teva Pharm. The District Court construed the term "un-launched state" during a pretrial conference to mean "not displayed" and maintained that construction in its post-trial denial of judgment as a matter of law. LG argues that the term "un-launched state" should mean "not running. I agree with LG. Consistent with claim construction principles, I look first to the language of the claims, followed by the remainder of the specification's language and prosecution history.

See Phillips, F. First, the claims state in part that: an application summary "displays" certain data offered in applications; each of the data is "selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen"; and the application summary is "displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state. In addition, by separating "launch" and "enable the selected data to be seen," the claims contemplate a difference between launching and displaying data.

See Chi. Options Exch. Int'l Sec. Further, the claim language distinguishes between "launch[ing] the respective application" itself, and "enab[ling] the selected data. Such a distinction would be rendered meaningless if launch were construed to mean "display. Moreover, I do not understand what "displaying" the application itself would mean in this context, where the claim language more specifically directs the invention to enable only certain "data" previewed in the application summary to be seen.

Safari Water Filtration Sys. Second, the specification uses the terms "launch" and "display" distinctly. This could either mean the terms are distinct, or, as the majority finds, that launch is synonymous with display. See Maj. As stated previously, based on claim differentiation principles, I find it more likely that "launch" is a first step of independent meaning, and "display" is a step that comes second, after the "summary window" has been launched.

Appellee Core Wireless Licensing S. However, the term "main view" refers to and is synonymous with the summary application window. Referring to this particular page using the term "view" does not confer additional meaning on the verb "launch.

Again, the specification contemplates display and opening as two separate steps in the user's process, which leads me to the conclusion that "display" and "open" are not synonymous, and that the drafters of the Patents-in-Suit knew how to use the term "display" when conveying visual access to an application's contents.

For that reason, I am skeptical of the majority's understanding that the term "unlaunched" "encompasses both applications that are not running at all and applications that are running, at least to some extent, in the background of the electronic device.

I also agree with LG's contention that the specification teaches the invention was directed to a problem in line with its construction of the term "un-launched state," or, at least, that the problems in the field are inconclusive to weigh in favor of either party's proposed construction.

LG asserts that the invention is directed to saving "the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application. Again, construction hinges on our understanding of the term "open" in this phrase and whether it refers to running or displaying an application.

No matter the construction of launch though, the claimed invention seeks to improve access to the large amount of information stored in small computing devices. See, e. It seems to me that the default state of the applications storing this information when a user navigates through the claimed summary application menu does not affect the utility of the claimed invention.

The majority identifies the stated focus of the inventions as to "allow the user to navigate quickly and efficiently to access data and activate a desired function" on small screens.

In our claim construction analysis, we look not to what is absent from the specification or what could have been written, but rather to what is included. Thus claims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification. Here, as mentioned above, the focus of the invention identified by the majority can support either party's construction of the disputed term. The use of an application summary menu to congregate data from myriad applications on a small screen computing device benefits users in the manner stated, regardless of whether the applications are running in the background.

Here again, enabling a user to better understand options offered by applications and data stored within them are goals that are successfully achieved with applications that are not running until selected from the main menu. Third, the prosecution history further supports LG's proffered construction. Even if Core Wireless did not disclaim its professed interpretation that "launch" means "display," fn5 I would nevertheless find LG's interpretation of "un-launched" comports more closely with the overall language of the Patents-in-Suit and prosecution history.

Indeed, during prosecution, Core Wireless distinguished the Asserted Claims from those in the prior art because, unlike the prior art, its claims did not "only ever display[]" the summary application menu "within a running instance of the program, i. Thus, Core Wireless used the term "launch" to mean running, not merely displayed.

The majority adopts Core Wireless's argument that construing "un-launched" to mean "not running" would exclude certain preferred embodiments in the specification, see Maj.

Specifically, Figure 3 illustrates an application window that indicates there is an ongoing chat not seen on the screen. See ' patent fig. Yet Core Wireless has not presented evidence, in the form of expert testimony or otherwise, to suggest that the display in the application menu of new messages or the use of the term ongoing in the summary menu would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to indicate the underlying application is running.

Core Wireless presents only attorney argument, not evidence. See Gemtron Corp. Saint-Gobain Corp. Moreover, I do not believe construing "unlaunched" to mean "not running" would be inconsistent with this preferred embodiment, since the requirements of claim 1 only state that "one or more applications" are in an un-launched state. Therefore, even if "ongoing" were to imply a running application, the application menu display of messages from a non-running message application would still satisfy the requirements of claim 1 of the Patents-in-Suit.

Accordingly, I would reverse the District Court's claim construction of "un-launched state" and construe the term to mean "not running.

I respectfully dissent. Unless otherwise specified, citations to the ' patent refer to disclosures in both patents. This is particularly true where, as here, no judgment under Rule 54 b or otherwise has ever been entered. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. Because we do not find this theory or the theory offered below to be welltaken, we do not decide whether the argument was waived, as Core Wireless argues. See generally Appellant's Br.

Such language could just as easily be understood to refer to a summary application menu's presentation of information from applications that are not currently running. Bitlaw Summary and Analysis An improved user interface for small screens such as a mobile device is considered to be patent eligible because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.

Decided: January 25, Claims 8 and 9 of the ' patent depend from claim 1, which recites emphases added : 1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a menu listing one or more applications, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu, wherein the application summary displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application, and wherein the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state.

Claims 11 and 13 of the ' patent depend from claim 1, which recites emphases added : 1. A computing device comprising a display screen, the computing device being configured to display on the screen a main menu listing at least a first application, and additionally being configured to display on the screen an application summary window that can be reached directly from the main menu, wherein the application summary window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first application and initiate the selected function, and wherein the application summary window is displayed while the application is in an un-launched state.

Patent Eligibility Anyone who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may obtain a patent.

Anticipation The Blanchard reference teaches a display screen for mobile phones that "provides an arrangement for dynamically varying how space on a small display is allocated for presentation of various types of user information.

Infringement LG presents two noninfringement arguments on appeal. The specification states the following when describing the advantages in user navigation achieved by the invention: [A] user can get to the summary window in just two steps—first, launch a main view which shows various applications; then, launch the appropriate summary window for the application of interest.

This is far faster and easier than conventional navigation approaches. The improved interfaces allow a user to more quickly access data and applications in electronic devices. LG moved for summary judgment that the claims constituted patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.

Even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea, they would have passed the machine-or-transformation test. The jury found all asserted claims to be infringed and not invalid.

LG moved for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement and anticipation, both of which were denied. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the generic idea of summarizing information existed prior to the invention.