IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Judgments of non-infringement and non-invalidity affirmed in cell phone technology dispute, (Apr 5, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Trial court decisions on non-infringement and invalidity were affirmed because the court’s claim construction was proper and arguments against validity were waived.

A Texas jury verdict finding that phones made by AT&T Mobility did not infringe a communications patent and that the patent was not invalid for anticipation would not be disturbed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided. The trial court’s claim construction was supported by the grammar of the claims, and AT&T’s challenges to invalidity had been waived by failure to file a motion for judgment as a matter of law (Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, April 5, 2023, Stoll, K.).

Joe Salazar was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 (the ’467 patent), which claimed technology for wireless and wired communications with command, control, and sensing for two-way communication of sound, voice, and data. In 2016, Salazar sued HTC Corp. (HTC) alleging certain HTC phones infringed the ’467 patent. The jury found non-infringement and did not reach the question of validity of the ’467 patent. In 2019, Salazar sued AT&T Mobility, LLC and other cell phone manufacturers (collectively, AT&T) for infringement of the ’467 patent, and HTC intervened seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement in favor of AT&T and found the patent was not invalid. Both sides appealed.

Claim construction. Salazar argued that the trial court erred in construing the terms “a” microprocessor and “said” microprocessor. Salazar contended that the claims should be read to encompass several different microprocessors, each capable of performing one of the required tasks, while the court had construed the claim language as requiring one microprocessor capable of performing all of the tasks. After reviewing its precedent, the Federal Circuit determined the district court correctly analyzed the grammar of the sentences at issue and found no error in the trial court’s conclusion. The court accordingly affirmed the judgment of noninfringement.

Anticipation. In its cross-appeal, AT&T argued that the trial court erred in not granting its motion for summary judgment on the issue of anticipation because it had offered substantial, clear, and convincing evidence on that issue. The Federal Circuit, however, held that AT&T had waived this issue by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 50.

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The case is Nos. 2021-2320, 2021-2376.

Attorneys: Dariush Keyhani (Keyhani LLC) for Joe A. Salazar. Todd Eric Landis (Williams Simons & Landis PLLC) for AT&T Mobility LLC, Sprint United Management Company, T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Cellco Partnership Inc., dba Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Companies: AT&T Mobility LLC; Sprint United Management Company; T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Cellco Partnership Inc., dba Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews