In a patent infringement action, the district court had granted summary judgment to the defendant TiVo — finding that certain TiVo products did not infringe Pause’s reissued patent. On appeal, Pause challenged the district court’s claim construction rulings as erroneously defining the limitations “circular storage buffer” and “time interval of predetermined duration”. In support of its position, Pause argued, inter alia, that (i) the lower court’s interpretation of a “circular storage buffer” limitation should not depend on other language appearing later in the claim and (ii) the language employed by the district court in construing the limitations was not present within the claim and, thereby, led to impermissible narrowing of the claim’s scope.

Posted by GEN-ERIC at 12:18:03 am into the following categories: In The News

---

http://gen-eric.com/patents/htsrv/trackback.php/349

Name:

Email: (not displayed on this site)

Site/Url:

Comment text:

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>

URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.

Options:
Auto-BR (Line breaks become <br />)
Remember me (Set cookies for name, email & url)