IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Invalidity affirmed in visual perception device dispute, (Jan 29, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson

A trial court’s claim construction underlying an invalidity determination was affirmed because it was consistent with the claim language, specification, and prosecution history.

A patentee for an image processing system failed to show any error in a Texas district court’s claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The trial court’s construction was entirely consistent with the claim language, specification, and prosecution history (Image Processing Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 23-2136 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025)).

Image Processing Technologies, Inc. (IPT) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,959,293 (the ’293 patent), which related to visual perception devices and device for image processing using histogram calculation units (HCUs). IPT brought suit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement against LG Electronics, Inc. (LG). The parties disputed the construction of the claim term “the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter.” The district court construed this term as “the histogram calculation units being configured to form one or more histograms representative of the at least one parameter.” Based on this construction, the parties stipulated to invalidity of the patent. IPT then appealed the claim construction order.

Claim construction. IPT argued that the histograms allowed by the trial court’s construction would render the claimed invention inoperable. The Federal Circuit found that, even if this were true, it would not decide the issue because the court’s claim construction was required to be based on the claim language, and the court lacked the power to rewrite the claim language to render an inoperable claim operable.

The appellate court also found that the specification and prosecution history were entirely consistent with the trial court’s construction. Finally, it was not error for the trial court to adopt a construction which was broader than the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s adopted “broadest reasonable interpretation” because the court found that the Board’s construction was incorrect.

The court affirmed the trial court’s claim construction order and the resulting invalidity determination.

The Case is No. 23-2136.

Judge: Stark, L.

Attorneys: Michael Karson (Winstead PC) for Image Processing Technologies LLC. Mark Liang (O'Melveny & Myers LLP) for LG Electronics Inc.

Companies: Image Processing Technologies LLC; LG Electronics Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews TexasNews