Starhome Gmbh v. AT & T Mobility LLC
743 F.3d 849
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Starhome GmbH owns U.S. Patent No. 6,920,487 (the ’487 patent) asserting an "intelligent gateway" that helps roaming mobile subscribers complete calls (e.g., translating short codes or erroneous dialed numbers).
- The specification describes intelligent gateways with local databases and also a system topology where mobile networks connect via intelligent gateways to a global packet-switch network. Figures 1–2 illustrate the system and a simplified call flow.
- Defendants (Roamware; AT&T and T‑Mobile as users of Roamware) operate platforms that translate dialed numbers for roaming users but do not connect to any external packet-switch or other external network.
- The district court construed "intelligent gateway" to mean "a network element that transfers information to and from a mobile network and another network external to the mobile network," adopting Defendants’ proposed construction based on the ordinary meaning of "gateway."
- Starhome stipulated to judgment of noninfringement under that construction and appealed the claim construction (Starhome conceded noninfringement given the construction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of "intelligent gateway" | "Gateway" need not require connection to an external network; term means a network element using databases/application logic to perform operations (Figure 2 shows gateway inside single network). | "Gateway" has ordinary telecom meaning: a point/device that connects/transfers information between networks; specification and incorporated PCT material support external-network connection. | Court construed "intelligent gateway" as a network element that transfers information to/from a mobile network and an external network (adopts ordinary meaning; Figure 2 is a simplified call flow, not a separate embodiment). |
| Infringement given construction | (Implicit) Accused systems perform the gateway functions asserted in claims. | Accused systems do not transfer information to/from any external network (stipulated), so they do not meet the construed limitation. | Noninfringement affirmed because accused systems lack the external-network transfer/connection required by the construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim terms given ordinary meaning unless lexicography or disavowal).
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (framework for claim construction; intrinsic evidence controls).
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (patentee lexicography and prosecution disclaimer principles).
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) (claim construction reviewed de novo).
- Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (issues when plaintiff concedes noninfringement).
- Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (presumption that claim terms have ordinary meaning absent clear intent otherwise).
- Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (doctrine of claim differentiation explained).
- Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claim differentiation does not override clear specification import).
- Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, 549 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (claim differentiation is one tool among many).
- Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (foreign prosecution statements may be relevant to claim construction).
- AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (caution on relying on foreign file histories).
- Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (patentee must show each claim limitation is met to prove infringement).