Tracking Apple's '381 Patent Infringement Case

Here, both parties had a dispute over how the terms ‘display’ and ‘first direction’ should be interpreted. The court agreed with Apple on its construction of both terms. Regarding the ‘first direction’ term, the court felt that Apple’s construction was in line with the common-sense definition. In contrast, Samsung’s was a ‘hyper-technical reading that the claim is incapable of performing” (Court Order Denying Preliminary Injunction at 54).

Regarding ‘display’, the court used Apple’s construction of the term as the court felt it appropriately explained the term and the actual patent specification.

Based on the court’s interpretation of those two claim terms from the ‘381 patent claims, the court found that Apple would be likely to succeed at trial on the matter of infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit did not discuss the district court’s finding on likely infringement of the ‘381 patent.

Please see the previous post Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Court's Denial, and Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion: Reasonable Likelihood of Success for more on this topic.  

For more on business litigation call 312-223-1699 to speak with one of our Chicago law firm attorneys.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end