{"id":4834,"date":"2012-02-11T14:27:15","date_gmt":"2012-02-11T20:27:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4834"},"modified":"2012-02-11T14:27:15","modified_gmt":"2012-02-11T20:27:15","slug":"htc-corp-v-ipcom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4834","title":{"rendered":"HTC Corp. v. IPCom"},"content":{"rendered":"

The oral argument in HTC Corp. v. IPCom<\/span>, App. No. 2011-1004 (Fed. Cir. 2012) is an interesting oral argument that focuses on claim construction issues.\u00a0\u00a0The case\u00a0is also a good example of how the word “that” can be dangerous in drafting claims.<\/p>\n

An exemplary claim at issue was claim 1:<\/p>\n

A mobile station<\/strong> for use with a network<\/strong> including a first base station and a second base station that<\/strong> achieves a handover from the first base station to the second base station by:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

storing link data for a link in a first base station, holding in reserve for the link resources of the first base station, and<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

when the link is to be handed over to the second base station:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

initially maintaining a storage of the link data in the first base station,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

initially causing the resources of the first base station to remain held in reserve, and<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

at a later timepoint determined by a fixed period of time predefined at a beginning of the handover, deleting the link data from the first base station and freeing up the resources of the first base station, the mobile station comprising:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

an arrangement for reactivating<\/em> the link with the first base station if the handover is unsuccessful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The point of contention was whether the word “that” referred back to “mobile station” or referred back to “network.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

For clarity, the court enumerated the claim elements as follows:<\/p>\n

[1] A mobile station<\/em> for use with a network including<\/em> a first base station and a second base station that<\/em> achieves a handover from the first base station to the second base station by:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[2] storing link data for a link in a first base station,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[3] holding in reserve for the link resources of the first base station, and<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[4] when the link is to be handed over to the second base station:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[5] initially maintaining a storage of the link data in the first base station,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[6] initially causing the resources of the first base station to remain held in reserve, and<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[7] at a later timepoint . . . deleting the link data from the first base station and freeing up the resources of the first base station, the mobile station comprising:<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[8] an arrangement for reactivating<\/em> the link with the first base station if the handover is unsuccessful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The court concluded that the word “that” referred back to the word network and that\u00a0the six functions in paragraphs 2-7 merely define the environment in which the mobile station operates.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

I’m left wondering if the patent owner won the battle but lost the war.\u00a0 It strikes me that the claim now boils down to:<\/p>\n

A mobile station … comprising:<\/p>\n

an arrangement for reactivating the link with the first base station if the handover is unsuccessful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As you can see, the newly construed claim\u00a0is a single means plus function claim.\u00a0 (And, if you had any doubt, the\u00a0opinion notes that the parties agreed that the claim element is a means plus function element.)\u00a0 Section 112, paragraph 6 permits combination<\/span> claims to use means plus function language; but, the court recognized in In re Hyatt<\/span>,\u00a0708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983)\u00a0 that\u00a0single means claims are invalid under section 112, paragraph 6.<\/p>\n

You can listen to the oral argument [here<\/a>].<\/p>\n

You can read the court’s opinion here: [Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The oral argument in HTC Corp. v. IPCom, App. No. 2011-1004 (Fed. Cir. 2012) is an interesting oral argument that focuses on claim construction issues.\u00a0\u00a0The case\u00a0is also a good example of how the word “that” can be dangerous in drafting claims. An exemplary claim at issue was claim 1: A mobile station for use with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4834"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4834"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4834\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4839,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4834\/revisions\/4839"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}