Monthly Archives: November 2018

ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE CORP. v. SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., decided November 19, 2018, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,007,209 and 6,473,554 are directed to uniform backlighting LED panels (pages 2-3).  “Emitted by plural lights sources mounted on said internal bottom wall” is required by claim 20 of the ‘209 patent (page 9).  The prior art does not mount light sources on the bottom (page 9).  A witness suggested modification to […]

HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC. v. F’REAL FOODS, LLC, decided November 16, 2018, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 is directed to a rinseable splash shield (page 2).  The method claim recites a “nozzle oriented towards the splash shield” and uses “positionable” for other objects (page 17).  Limitations were not read in from the specification as the claim itself as the claim recites orientation of the nozzle as part of […]

ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INV. v. HTC AMERICA, INC., decided Nov. 16, 2018, Statutory Subject Matter

U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 is directed to restricting software operation using a key code for the computer and a license record for the application (pages 2-3).  The improvement is in storing the license record as part of the BIOS memory (pages 3-4).  The USPTO appeal board declined to review as the claims are a technical […]

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., decided November 9, 2018, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 is directed to securing network devices using a logging module for configuration changes (pages 2-3).  “Broadcast” was construed as requiring a broadcast transmission to be delivered to all network devices (pages 5-6).  The patent includes “multicasting via a multicast address as a type of broadcasting” and does not disclose any other […]

ACCELERATION BAY, LLC v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC., decided November 6, 2018, Claim Interp, Preamble, Prior Art

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,829,634; 6,701,344; and 6,714,966 are directed to broadcast channel overlays in a point-to-point communications network (pages 2-3).  The “participant” is not specifically “an application program that interacts with a logical broadcast channel which overlays an underlaying network” as the claims and specification do not define or expressly describe the term in this […]