Case Information
*1 N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CRONOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
EXPEDIA, INC., PRICELINE.COM
INCORPORATED, NKA PRICELINE GROUP INC., PRICELINE.COM LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2016-2528, 2016-2529, 2016-2530 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-01538-LPS, 1:13-cv- 01541-LPS, 1:13-cv-01544-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.
______________________ Decided: August 17, 2017 B RIAN D AVID L EDAHL , Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre- sented by P AUL NTHONY K ROEGER ARRY USS N ATHANIEL S T . C LAIR II, Jackson Walker, LLP, Dal- las, TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represent- *2 , , ed by J OHN M ARTIN J ACKSON , M ATTHEW COSTA , R OBERT P. ATHAM ,.
Before O’M ALLEY EYNA , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judg-
es.
O’M ALLEY Circuit Judge.
Cronos Technologies, LLC (“Cronos”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Appellees do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,664,110 (“the ’110 pa- tent”) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. See Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc. , Nos. 13-1538- LPS, 13-1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107479 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016); Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc. ( Claim Construction ), Nos. 13-1538-LPS, 13- 1541-LPS, 13-1544-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *23–26 (D. Del. July 22, 2016). Cronos also appeals the district court’s construction of: (1) “item code” and “identi- fying code”; and (2) the user-input terms.
After fully reviewing and considering the ’110 patent and the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the district court correctly construed the terms “item code” and “iden- tifying code,” within the context of the ’110 patent, to be distinct from “user-discernable information” such that item codes and identifying codes do not contain any user- discernable information. See Claim Construction , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *14–21; see also, e.g. , ’110 patent, col. 8, ll. 15–27; col. 12, ll. 39–49; col. 14, ll. 56–58; col. 16, ll. 30–42. The district court also correctly con- strued the user-input terms. See Claim Construction , 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95768, at *21–23.
Because the construction of “item code” and “identify- ing code” require that the codes contain no user- discernable information, no reasonable jury could find that Appellees’ accused products infringe the ’110 patent under Cronos’s theory, which relies on the use of search *3 parameters containing user-discernable information. Similarly, no reasonable jury could find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because the ’110 patent specifically excludes user-discernable information from being contained within item codes and identifying codes. Cronos’s doctrine of equivalents theory relying on item codes and identifying codes that do contain user- discernable information within them would vitiate the ’110 patent’s requirement, as expressed in the claim construction, that the codes do not contain user- discernable information.
For the foregoing reasons, and those expressed in more detail in the district court’s orders, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED