The oral argument of the week comes from RADWARE, LTD. v. F5 NETWORKS, INC., No. 2017-1212 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2017).
Those of you who follow the Finjan line of cases and whether inaccessible modules of software code can be considered capable of infringing will find this case interesting — particularly with respect to damages issues.
I have noted before that I am not particularly fond of the decision in Finjan because I think it requires a claim to be construed to cover inoperable features — and similarly converts the claim to a mere aggregation of elements. You can see my previous post [here].
The oral argument from RADWARE is available here:
The court’s Rule 36 treatment of the appeal and cross-appeal in RADWARE is available [here].
For more background, one of Judge Whyte’s rulings from the district court is available [here].