#Jmol civil procedure trial#

The District Court Correctly Did Not Consider theCertificate of Correction Because evidence of error in the prosecution history alone is insufficient to allow the district court to correct an error that is not evident on the face of the patent, the Circuit affirms the district court's refusal to amend the claim. The optional nature of such services negates any argument that such a limitation in the claim is implied as necessary to the invention, and would be an improper importation of a limitation from the specification into the claims. H-W next argues that the omitted language is in the specification, but 'no-contact transactions' appear to be optional premium listing services. Although other claims do contain the missing limitation, the inclusion of that limitation in one claim does not necessitate, or even fairly indicate, that the limitation should be included in all other claims.

Nothing in the surrounding claim language indicates that the limitation was missing. H-W argues that the district court itself had authority to correct the error in claim 9.Īccording to the panel, a district court can correct a patent only if, among other things, 'the error is evident from the face of the patent.' Here, the error is not evident from the face of the patent since claim 9 reads coherently without the missing limitation. When the PTO allowed patent claim 9, it included the phrase 'wherein said user completes a transaction with at least one of said merchants listed without the need to generate a voice call,' but when the PTO issued the patent, the quoted language was inadvertently omitted. H-W also appeals the district court's summary judgment holding that claim 9 is indefinite and thus invalid. The District Court Properly did not Amend Claim 9 The panel therefore affirms the district court's construction of claim 9. H-W appeals the district court's construction of the claim terms 'user of said phone' and 'said user' to mean 'a consumer operating the IP Phone,' arguing that the correct construction is 'a person or thing that uses an IP phone.' According to the panel, the only significant evidence H-W supplies in support of this contention, other than conclusory and undeveloped citations to the specification, is a general purpose dictionary definition of 'user' as 'a person or thing that uses something.' In contrast, the district court's construction-that 'user of said phone' is limited to a human consumer- finds plenty of support in the claims, specification, and extrinsic evidence.

According to the specification, an IP Phone is a telephone that can operate and execute voice communication in the same way as conventional telephones either via a Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) or an IP network. H-W sued Overstock, alleging that Overstock's smartphone application infringed its patent directed to an apparatus and method for performing contextual searches on an Internet Protocol (IP) Phone.

#Jmol civil procedure trial#

Medisim – The Circuit vacates denial of JMOL as to anticipation because defendant failed to move after presentation of the evidence, but affirms the grant of JMOL on an unjust enrichment claim and the grant of a new trial on anticipation.įed. H-W Technology – The Circuit affirms a ruling that (1) a claim corrected by a certificate of correction cannot be asserted where the infringement began prior to issuance of the certificate, and (2) an apparatus claim that includes method limitations is invalid as indefinite.