The Federal Circuit Rejects Infringement Arguments That Are Inconsistent with Prior Art Validity Arguments
In Commscope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., Nos. 2020-1817, 2020-1818 (Fed. Cir. August 24, 2021), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement and affirmed the denial of JMOL of invalidity of Dali’s U.S. Patent No. 9,031,521.
Dali accused CommScope’s FlexWave system of infringing the ’521 patent relating to wireless communications with portable equipment and handsets. The district construed “switching a controller off” as “[s]witching a controller to an off status.” The jury found infringement and no invalidity. Commscope appealed and Dali cross appealed.
The Federal Circuit held that Dali failed to preserve its challenge to the district court’s claim construction because it was relegated to a footnote. The Federal Circuit then reversed the finding of infringement, holding that Dali’s infringement argument conflicts with its validity arguments. The Federal Circuit held that Dali cannot simultaneously argue that the FlexWave system infringes by using a switch that is effectively nonoperating for a single power amplifier and that a prior art reference does not anticipate, given it has a switch that operates identically to select feedback from multiple power amplifiers. The Federal Circuit also concluded that Dali failed to argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Sneha Nyshadham, a law clerk with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, also contributed to this article.