Interdigital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission
690 F.3d 1318
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- InterDigital appeals ITC ruling that Nokia’s products do not infringe the ’966 and ’847 patents.
- Patents cover CDMA ramp-up during handshake, using codes to initiate contact and then transmit data.
- ALJ construed term 'code' as spreading code and 'increased power level' as continuous increase; Commission affirmed no infringement.
- Panel majority reverses, holding 'code' and 'increased power level' were misdefined and remand for further proceedings.
- Dissent argues 'code' is defined in the specification as a spreading code and rejects expanding to scrambling codes; cautions on claim differentiation misuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of 'code' in claim 1 | InterDigital: ordinary meaning includes non-spreading codes. | Nokia/Commission: 'code' limited to spreading codes per spec. | Code should be ordinary meaning; not limited to spreading codes. |
| Scope of 'spreading code' vs 'code' differentiation | Dependent claim 5 uses 'spreading code'; supports broader 'code' in claim 1. | No, 'code' in claim 1 is restricted to spreading codes. | Claim differentiation supports broader 'code' in claim 1. |
| Meaning of 'increased power level' during ramp-up | Language covers both continuous and discrete increases. | Requires continuous increases per specification. | Includes both intermittent and continuous increases. |
| Domestic industry basis for licensing under § 1337(a)(3) | Licensing activities alone can sustain domestic industry. | Licensing must relate to articles manufactured domestically. | Licensing activities can establish domestic industry; licensing sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (references that claims must be read in light of specification)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claims construed by specification and prosecution history)
- Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim differentiation strong presumption; rebuttable)
- SunRace Roots Equip. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim differentiation strongest when dependent claim narrows)
- Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim differentiation pitfalls; superfluous dependent claim)
- Tandon Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (doctrine of claim construction; cannot broaden beyond spec)