Divided Federal Circuit Remands for Construction of Claim Terms and Further Discovery

15 June 2013 IP Litigation Current Blog

In Baron Services, Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013), a divided panel of the Federal Circuit found the district court’s summary judgment ruling of noninfringement and award of attorney’s fees premature and remanded the case for further discovery and claim construction briefing.  This decision provides guidance that, in cases before district courts with no standard patent procedures where a party wants the court to hold a claim construction hearing, it is a good idea to ask the Court for that hearing early in the case.

The district court had granted summary judgment of noninfringement finding that claim construction was unnecessary. It was unnecessary, in the view of the district court, because the Plaintiff (who had asked the court for a Markman hearing) had declined to disclose its proposed constructions in response to discovery requests. During summary judgment briefing, the Plaintiff apparently did dispute certain claim constructions inherent to the Defendant’s noninfringement position. Plaintiff also argued that summary judgment was premature as it had not yet been able to depose key witnesses of the Defendant and Defendant had not yet produced its source code relating to the accused product.

The majority of the Federal Circuit panel agreed with the Plaintiff, finding that summary judgment was premature in light of the open discovery issues. The majority noted that “the facts of this case demonstrate the necessity of construing claim terms as part of the infringement analysis” and that the summary judgment hearing made clear that “the parties dispute the scope of many claim terms and rely on their own understandings of those terms to support their infringement or non-infringement theories … [c]laim construction would resolve the disputes between the parties and provide the legal basis for determining infringement.”

Judge Reyna disagreed and dissented. He wrote that “[o]ur prior decisions of the need of claim interpretation have not demanded that claims be construed in advance of summary judgment” and also relied on admissions made by Plaintiff during discovery concerning the scope of the claims for purposes of infringement.

Of the 94 U.S. district courts, only 27 have adopted patent local rules. Nearly all of these 27 districts have rules directed to claim construction, including parameters on briefing (number of terms, etc.) as well as Markman hearings. While some districts that have not adopted patent local rules still have relatively standard procedures when it comes to patent cases, this leaves a strong majority of courts that do not have any such rules or procedures.

In such cases, if one side or the other believes having claim construction briefing and a Markman hearing important, it is best to raise such a request with the Court early. This helps protect against being caught flat footed if your opponent files an early motion for summary judgment on an infringement or validity issue. While in Baron Services, the divided court sided with the Plaintiff who had requested claim construction briefing, other Federal Circuit panels may not treat future cases in the same fashion.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.