Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732

Ancora owns U.S. Patent 6,411,941 on license-verification for software.
Ancora sued Apple in Dec 2010 in the N.D. Cal. for infringement of the ’941 patent.
District court construed the claims and Ancora stipulated to summary judgment of non-infringement under that construction.
District court dismissed all claims and counterclaims.
Ancora appeals the district court’s construction of “program”; Apple cross-appeals on “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” being definite.
Court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “program” has its ordinary meaning.	Ancora; broad ordinary meaning including OS and applications.	Apple; narrower meaning limited to application programs.	Yes; “program” has its ordinary broad meaning.
Whether “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” are indefinite.	Ancora; terms have clear ordinary meanings.	Apple; specification creates ambiguity.	Not indefinite; ordinary meanings survive after prosecution history review.
Prosecution history clarifies claim scope? (implied).	Prosecution history supports ordinary meaning.	Prosecution history narrows scope.	Prosecution history confirms ordinary meaning remains intact.

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reasonableness of claim scope based on ordinary meaning)
IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claim construction grounded in ordinary meaning)
Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (distinction between 112(b) definiteness and inventor’s conception)
Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (remarks in examiner’s statements insufficient to limit claim scope)
Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prosecution history should be consulted to construe claims)