905 F.3d 1341
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- WARF sued Apple for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752, jury found infringement and awarded ~$234M; district court denied Apple's JMOL and new trial; Apple appealed.
- The patent claims a predictor-based technique for out-of-order processors that uses mis‑speculation indications to produce a prediction tied to a “particular” load instruction and prevents speculation when a prediction exceeds a threshold.
- Apple’s accused A7/A8/A8X processors implement an LSD (Load-Store Dependency) predictor using a prediction table with 12‑bit hashed load tags (4,096 tags), allowing multiple distinct loads to map to the same tag (aliasing).
- Key disputed claim terms: “particular” (whether a prediction must be associated with a single load instruction) and “prediction” (whether it must be capable of receiving updates).
- District court construed “particular” to have its plain meaning (implying a single load) but did not give a jury instruction; it construed “prediction” (at summary judgment) as requiring the capability of updates; summary judgment of no anticipation based on Steely was granted for WARF.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL (holding no reasonable juror could find literal infringement under the plain-meaning “particular” requirement) and affirmed summary judgment that Steely did not anticipate the claims.
Issues
| Issue | WARF's Argument | Apple’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apple’s LSD predictor meets the claim requirement that a prediction be associated with a “particular” load instruction | Prediction can be associated with the particular load that mis‑speculated even if the same prediction also applies to other loads (i.e., aliasing doesn’t defeat “particular”) | "Particular" has its plain and ordinary meaning: prediction must be associated with a single load instruction (not a group); Apple’s hashed 12‑bit tags map multiple loads to one prediction, so no literal infringement | Court: No literal infringement—no reasonable juror could find the prediction was tied to a single load; reversed denial of JMOL. |
| Whether evidence showed Apple’s load tags sometimes uniquely identify a single load (so claims could be sometimes practiced) | Argued aliasing is rare (cited 0.1% statistic and docs) so sometimes tags uniquely identify one load, supporting infringement in some circumstances | The 0.1% figure relates to performance impact, not alias frequency; documentation does not show tags uniquely identify loads in practice; millions of loads vs 4,096 tags means tags represent multiple loads | Court: Evidence insufficient to support that tags ever practically represent a single load; reasonable inference is tags always group multiple loads. |
| Proper construction of "prediction" for anticipation by Steely (dynamic vs static) | "Prediction" can be static or dynamic; Steely’s tags/comparisons amount to predictions that could change | The patent repeatedly describes predictions that update based on historical mis‑speculations; "prediction" must be capable of receiving updates; Steely does not disclose updatable predictions | Court: Affirmed district court—"prediction" must be updateable; Steely does not disclose such a prediction; summary judgment of no anticipation affirmed. |
| Whether Steely discloses a prediction capable of receiving updates (anticipation) | Steely’s tag comparison is functionally a prediction and tags could change over time (per Apple expert), creating an updatable outcome | Steely’s specification does not disclose tags changing or updatable predictions; expert scenario is speculative and not supported by Steely text | Court: No reasonable juror could find Steely discloses an updatable prediction; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms read in context of the patent; "ordinary meaning" to a person skilled in the art)
- GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent characterizations in specification guide claim construction)
- VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (consistent characterization in specification supports limiting construction)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cannot expand claim scope beyond specification examples)
- Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (a product that sometimes practices a claim can still infringe)
- Spectrum Int'l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (the term "comprising" does not override claim limitations)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction factual findings reviewed for clear error; ultimate construction is legal)
- Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2011) (Seventh Circuit standard for JMOL review)
- LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp., 837 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (regional-circuit law applies to JMOL/new-trial review)