Appeal No. 2005-1431
Application 09/442,070
Subsequent to issuance of the district court's order providing the above interpretations,
appellants amended reissue claims 40 and 45 (copies of Doyle claims 1 and 6, respectively) in
the instant reissue application proceeding by deleting the phrase "by said browser." Second
Preliminary Amendment8 at 5. Following a jury finding that Microsoft infringed claims 1 and 6
of the Doyle patent, the district court entered judgment in favor of Eolas.9
On appeal, the Federal Circuit (a) held that the district court improperly granted JMOL in
Eolas’ favor on Microsoft’s anticipation and obviousness defenses and improperly rejected
Microsoft’s inequitable conduct defense and (b) accordingly vacated the district court’s
decisions and remanded for further proceedings on those issues. Eolas Technologies, Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1328, 1341, 73 USPQ2d 1782, 1785, 1795 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In
addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of “executable application”
in the Doyle claims, id. at 1336, 73 USPQ2d at 1791, and agreed with the district court that
Microsoft’s proposed construction, limiting “executable application” to stand-alone programs,
does not comport with the entire technological and temporal context for this term. Id. at 1337,
73 USPQ2d at 1792. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that Microsoft had waived its right to
argue on appeal that the district court erred by instructing the jury as follows regarding the
meaning of “utilized by said browser to identify and locate":
8 Paper No. 16.
9 The district court's decision on post-trial motions is reported as Eolas Technologies
Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 70 USPQ2d 1939 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (not reported in F.Supp.2d).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007