Background
PACT sued Intel in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Intel’s computer processor products infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. eight million three hundred twelve thousand three hundred one and eight million four hundred seventy-one thousand five hundred ninety-three. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for both patents. PACT appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
The court’s reasoning
Regarding the thirty-one patent, the court found that PACT failed to raise a capability-based infringement argument at the summary judgment stage. Although PACT argued that its expert showed the accused products could process data, the court determined this did not constitute a valid argument that the devices were capable of infringement. Regarding the five-ninety-three patent, the court upheld the district court’s claim construction of physically dedicated connection. This construction required a connection designed to directly interconnect a particular device to a particular memory via a link inaccessible to other devices. This interpretation was supported by PACT’s own statements during a parallel ex parte reexamination proceeding. PACT’s alternative argument that only some segments of the path needed to be dedicated was inconsistent with its prior statements.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the requirement that patent holders must clearly articulate specific infringement theories, such as capability-based arguments, at the summary judgment stage to avoid forfeiture. It also confirms that claim constructions supported by a patentee’s statements during reexamination will be upheld on appeal.