July 26, 2014

A Carrier Is Not a Country

Addressing a lower court’s claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that more limited claim construction found a lower court was correct and sustained the summary judgment ruling.  Technology Patents LLC  v. T-Mobile (UK) LTD., Case No. 11-1581 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 17, 2012) (Bryson, J.).

Plaintiff Technology Patents LLC (TPL) filed suit against more than 100 defendants, generally falling into three categories: domestic carriers (and handset companies), software providers, and foreign carriers.  TPL asserted that defendants infringed its patent directed to a global paging system utilizing a land-based packet-switched digital data network.  The global paging system included a feature for permitting users to remotely designate countries in which they are expected to be located.  The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the domestic carriers and the software providers and dismissed the case against the foreign carriers for lack of personal jurisdiction.  TPL appealed. 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the domestic carriers, but reversed with regard to the software providers as to certain claims.  The Court did not address the merits of the claims against the foreign carriers in view of its decision to affirm the non-infringement finding as to the domestic carriers. 

Regarding non-infringement by the domestic carriers, the Federal Circuit found that the accused technology implemented by the domestic carriers did not include all required claim limitations, such as “receiving user” and “designated by the receiving user,” among others.  As to the term “receiving user,” the Court concluded that the limitation required a person, not a person-pager combination, and that the designation of a country is done by a person, not by a device.  Further, the Court determined that the distinction between “carriers” and “country” in which the receiving user is located is material and that accused products do not infringe in part because the specification and asserted claims required the designation of the country in which the receiving user is located, not the designation of the receiving user’s carrier.  Thus, the Court affirmed the district court’s claim construction and its grant of the summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of the domestic carriers.

Regarding the foreign carriers, the Federal Circuit did not address the jurisdictional issues because the infringement case against the foreign carriers depended on the patent owners’ ability to prove infringement by the domestic carriers.  With respect to the software providers, the Court disagreed with the district court’s decision that certain patent claims implicated joint or divided infringement requiring actions by multiple actors and vacated the district court's ruling on those claims, remanding the case for further proceedings.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

McDermott Will & Emery is a premier international law firm with a diversified business practice. Numbering more than 1,100 lawyers, we have offices in Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Houston,...

+1 312 372 2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.