Cisco Systems v TQ Delta
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC
No. 2018-1806; Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC No. 2018-1917Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019Before Circuit Judges Newman, Linn, and Wallach.
This appeal is companion to appeal No. 2018-1799, wherein four claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 (“the ’404 patent”) were held to be obvious over the same combination of prior art analyzed in this appeal. (Please see the previous case summary). In this appeal, the appellants challenged the PTAB’s interpretation of the remaining claims of the ‘404 patent. The court agreed with the appellants and vacated the PTAB’s holding, remanding the case.
The appellants asserted that the PTAB did not apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “synchronization signal” in light of the specification of the ’404 patent. The court reviewed the PTAB’s assessment of the intrinsic evidence de novo. The court determined that claim 6 was representative and reviewed the term as used in the claim. The court then reviewed the surrounding claims and the remaining specification to interpret the claim term, as required by Philips.
The court found that the specification and the claims did not limit what the signal must synchronize or otherwise limit the claim to a particular type of synchronization. Applying the principle that it is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment into the claims absent a clear indication that the patentee intended so limit the claims, the court broadened the interpretation of “synchronization signal” and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Image: istock
Read more: Federal Bar member attorneys may access the full case summary by registered patent attorney B.C. “Bill” Killough in the July 2019 issue of Federal Circuit Case Digest
B.C. Killough is a registered patent attorney based in Charleston, SC. On behalf of his clients, Bill has obtained more than 300 United States patents, participated in prosecuting more than 100 foreign patent applications and he has filed more than 1000 trademark applications with the US Patent and Trademark Offices.
Additionally, you may read the full opinion here.