Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.

Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

February 4, 2022, Decided

2020-2222, 2021-1527

Opinion

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge LINN.

Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge DYK.

Linn, Circuit Judge.

Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and Avago Technologies Ltd. (collectively "Broadcom") and Apple Inc. ("Apple") appeal from the adverse decision of [*2]  the District Court for the Central District of California in an infringement suit filed by the California Institute of Technology ("Caltech") for infringement of its U.S. Patents No. 7,116,710 ("the '710 patent"), No. 7,421,032 ("the '032 patent"), and No. 7,916,781 ("the '781 patent").

Because the district court did not err in its construction of the claim limitation "repeat" and because substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict of infringement of the asserted claims of the '710 and '032 patents, we affirm the district court's denial of JMOL on infringement thereof. We also affirm the district court's conclusion that claim 13 of the '781 patent is patent-eligible but vacate the jury's verdict of infringement thereof because of the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the construction of the claim term "variable number of subsets." We thus remand for a new trial on infringement of claim 13 of the '781 patent. We further affirm the district court's summary judgment findings of no invalidity based on IPR estoppel and its determination of no inequitable conduct. We affirm the district court's decision with respect to its jury instructions on extraterritoriality. But because Caltech's two-tier damages theory cannot be supported on this record, we vacate the jury's damages award and remand for a new trial on damages.

 [*3] Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3179 *; __ F.4th __; 2022 WL 333669

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BROADCOM LIMITED, NKA BROADCOM INC., BROADCOM CORPORATION, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, NKA AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES PTE. LIMITED, APPLE INC., Defendants-Appellants

Prior History:  [*1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:16-cv-03714-GWAGR, Judge George H. Wu.

Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221941 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2017)

Disposition: AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

bits, repeat, infringement, district court, gates, output, encoder, patent, repetition, irregular, input, chips, damages, parity-check, negotiations, generation, estoppel, grounds, extraterritorial, invalidity, variable, wire, hypothetical, decoder, subsets, inequitable conduct, prior art, duplication, message, sales

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Substantial Evidence, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, Postverdict Judgment, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Reexamination Proceedings, Appeals, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Defenses, Inequitable Conduct, Effect of Inequitable Conduct, Burdens of Proof, Nondisclosure of Cumulative Information, Elements, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Prior Art, Infringement Actions, Infringing Acts, Indirect Infringement, Remedies, Damages, Measure of Damages, Patentholder Losses, Reasonable Royalties, Infringer's Profits