Nazomi Communications v. ARM Holdings (Fed. Cir. 2005)
In a dispute over a patented “Java hardware accelerator” for translating Java bytecode into native instructions for a CPU, the district court construed the claim term “instruction” and found that ARM’s accused device did not infringe.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the lower court had not been detailed enough in its claim construction ruling:
This court’s review of a district court’s claim construction, albeit without deference, nonetheless is not an independent analysis in the first instance. Moreover, in order to perform such a review, this court must be furnished "sufficient findings and reasoning to permit meaningful appellate scrutiny." Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This requirement for sufficient reasoning applies with equal force to issues of law, such as claim construction, and issues of fact, such as infringement. Id.
This opinion was written by Judge Rader and the panel members include Chief Judge Michel and Judge Proust. Harold Wegner has noted, and I tend to agree, that this opinion appears to be written as a foreshadow of where Rader would take the Phillips decision — a decision that not expected until late this summer.
Links:
Judge Rules in favor of Eli Lilly & Co on Patent
According to the New York Times, The AP, and Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O Patent News Blog, U.S. Distr
Comments are closed.