Summary
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in a patent dispute between Taction Technology and Apple Inc. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by striking the plaintiff's expert testimony based on an unwritten requirement under local patent rules and by improperly limiting claim constructions regarding damping and Q-factor without clear disavowal in the specification. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in striking the expert report under Local Patent Rule 3.1(c).
- Whether the district court erred in construing the term "highly damped output" to require mechanical damping and a Q‑factor less than 1.5.
- Whether summary judgment of noninfringement was proper under the applicable standard.
Holdings
- The district court abused its discretion in striking Dr. Oliver’s expert opinions because the alleged unwritten “how” requirement in Rule 3.1(c) was not supported by the plain language of the rule.
- The district court’s construction was erroneous; the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and is not limited to mechanical damping nor to a Q‑factor of less than 1.5.
- Summary judgment was improper because the district court’s claim construction and striking of the expert report were erroneous, leaving genuine issues of material fact.
Key quotations
“We hold it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to strike Dr. Oliver’s opinions based on an unwritten “how” requirement in Rule 3.1(c).” (at 7)
“We do not agree. “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”” (at 9)
Factual background
Taction owns patents ’885 and ’117 covering tactile transducers that use damping to produce bass‑frequency vibrations. It sued Apple alleging that iPhone and Apple Watch products infringe these patents. The district court struck the plaintiff's expert report and granted summary judgment of noninfringement based on its construction of "highly damped output".
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of claims of U.S. Patents 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, striking the plaintiff's expert report under Local Patent Rule 3.1(c) and construing the term "highly damped output" to require mechanical damping and a Q‑factor less than 1.5. Taction appealed both the striking of the expert report and the claim constructions.
Remand instructions
Vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.