Search the Archives           Subscribe           About this News Service           Reader Comments

Archived updates for Tuesday, April 18, 2006

A Dispositive Summary Judgment on Claim Construction

Philips Electronics North America Corp., et al. v. Contec Corp., et al. (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2006, not citeable as precedent) contains an excellent example of trial counsel's cooperation on the resolution of claim contruction. During the hearing, both sides agreed that, with respect to the ’359 patent, if the court adopted the claim construction proffered by the other side, summary judgment of infringement would be appropriate:
Counsel for Philips framed it this way: "So if the Court construes it in
Philips' favor, the defendants have proffered no reason why summary judgment on
infringement should not be granted. And vice versa. If the Court construes the
term to mean what Compo Micro Tech proposes, then Philips could concede that
summary judgment on the ’359 patent is required. So I don't think with respect
to infringement on the ’359 there is any issue between the parties." See Joint
Appendix 3272.

Counsel for CMT agreed: "I concede that if Your Honor construed it so
broadly to mean any stored product identification data, as they would submit, of
any kind, then we would fall within and must fall within the construction and we
would be liable for infringement." Id.

The district court confirmed that CMT stipulated that the claim
construction was case-dispositive: "The important point for me to know at this
junction is, it's not disputed that at the end of the day, at least in this
Court, if it is determined Philips is right, summary judgment of infringement
for Philips is in order." To this, counsel for CMT unequivocally responded: "If
your Honor adopts their construction as they have proffered it to the Court,
yes, Your Honor." JA 3274.
    (0)comment(s)     translate     More Updates     Send