Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
701 F. App'x 957
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- ContentGuard sued Apple alleging infringement of five patents (the Patents‑in‑Suit) related to digital rights management; trial focused on five Asserted Claims narrowed pre‑trial.
- The District Court construed the disputed term “usage rights” to require that usage rights be “attached, or treated as attached” to digital content.
- After a jury trial, the jury found noninfringement and declined to find the Asserted Claims invalid; the District Court entered final judgment for Apple.
- Both parties filed post‑trial JMOL and new‑trial motions; the District Court denied both.
- ContentGuard appealed the claim construction and denial of a new trial; Apple conditionally cross‑appealed issues including patent eligibility and JMOL denials.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court: it upheld the “attached, or treated as attached” construction, rejected ContentGuard’s evidentiary complaints as waived or non‑prejudicial, and preserved jurisdiction over the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | ContentGuard's Argument | Apple's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of “usage rights” — whether “associated with” suffices or must be “attached, or treated as attached” | Usage rights can be merely “associated with” content; the District Court’s attachment requirement is incorrect | The specification and claims require usage rights to be attached or treated as attached to the digital work | Court affirmed: construction requires usage rights to be attached or treated as attached, supported by specification and repeated characterizations |
| Admission of expert testimony and related evidentiary rulings (ContentGuard says exclusion prejudiced its case) | District Court improperly barred expert from arguing that mere association meets the claim limitation, entitling ContentGuard to a new trial | District Court correctly excluded testimony inconsistent with claim construction to avoid jury confusion | Affirmed: exclusion was within district court’s discretion and not an abuse; ContentGuard’s proffer largely synonymous with the court’s construction and thus the evidentiary rulings did not require reversal |
| Evidentiary errors/new trial request | Multiple trial “gamesmanship” and evidentiary errors warrant new trial | ContentGuard failed to identify specific erroneous rulings or show substantial effect on the outcome | Affirmed: ContentGuard waived many arguments by failing to frame them under correct legal standards and did not show abuse of discretion or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (jurisdictional standard for appeals)
- United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227 (district court’s intent to enter final judgment)
- Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc., 320 F.3d 1354 (final judgment and appellate jurisdiction)
- SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 769 F.3d 1073 (regional circuit law governs JMOL/new trial review)
- Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (JMOL standard)
- Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293 (start claim construction with claim language)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (claim terms given ordinary meaning to PHOSITA; specification context)
- CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346 (de novo review when only intrinsic evidence considered)
- Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350 (claims may define terms; look to specification when unclear)
- Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359 (specification is the best guide to claim meaning)
- GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365 (construing terms consistent with repeated specification characterization)
- Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (specification use of alternative terms does not necessarily broaden claim term)
- Ericsson, Inc. v. D‑Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (admission of expert testimony reviewed under regional circuit law)
- TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290 (avoiding jury confusion supports excluding testimony inconsistent with claim construction)
- Verizon Commc’ns, Inc. v. 761 F.3d 409 (evidentiary ruling reversible only if substantial effect on outcome)
- Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333 (failure to argue under operative framework can constitute waiver)
- Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171 (appellate courts do not research issues not presented by parties)