Oral Argument of the Week: Datcard Systems v. Pacsgear

The oral argument in Datcard Systems v. Pacsgear will interest some practitioners.  The issues on appeal were how the words “data” and “automatically” should be construed.

I always find it interesting when somebody coins a new term.  For example, in Omega Engineering, Inc v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) the phrase “prosecution disclaimer” was added to our lexicon.  In 2004, Lemley et al. introduced the phrase “divided infringement.”  In the Datcard Systems v. Pacsgear oral argument, Judge Chen notes that the cases of  Edwards Life Sciences v. Cook and Bid for Position v. AOL stand for a theory that he dubs “interchangeable use.”  Judge Chen explains the “interchangeable use” theory in this sound bite: [Listen].

The panel issued a Rule 36 affirmance in this appeal.

You can listen to the oral argument here:  [Listen].

Comments are closed.