the HTC vs IPCOM ruling at the cafc today presented some interesting rulings/arguments by the court.
I didn't read in super detail but the couple i saw were:
1) A court should also look to the prosecution history when construing a claim. ... and the use of a word in a claim language in multiple claims.
- i think this is one of the arguments that dunner argued for in IDCC case, right?
2) it looks like the court inserted both basestation and mobile station in determining the patent (didn't nok argue that it was for basestation only... although i don't recall if that patent was appealed or not)... even though the patent didn't recite mobile station in it...only the underlying network environment in which the mobile station operates.
do you think the decision and thought process is relevant to idcc's case and is it a positive or negative?
thx
| 