IPComm has verdict reversed on appeal. Lower court misconstrued claims.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/01/by-dennis-crouch-htc-v-ipcom-fed-cir-2012-ipcom-is-the-german-version-of-a-patent-troll-or-as-lord-justice-jacob-wro.html?cid=6a00d8341c588553ef0168e66f4a5c970c
Interesting what the appeals court said about construing claims.
<One basis of HTC's argument came from the prosecution history where the applicant referred to the six action elements in the claim as a "process" and the examiner called them "steps." The Federal Circuit held that HTC (and the lower court) placed too much emphasis on those statements – especially because "in most cases" the examiner was referring to parallel method claims not at issue here. In looking at the prosecution history, the court also sent the reminder that prosecution history is less important in interpretation than claim and specification language. "Although the district court was correct in considering the prosecution history, the claim language and specification in this case are better sources for the correct construction." >
Similar arguments have been made in our case so hopefully Judge Ware will stick primarily to the claims and the specification for determining construction.
Opty
