Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

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

  • Case Opinion

CardSoft (assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC v. VeriFone, Inc.

CardSoft (assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC v. VeriFone, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

December 2, 2015, Decided

2014-1135

Opinion

 [***1355]  [*1348]   Hughes, Circuit Judge.

The case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. In CardSoft v. VeriFone, Inc., 769 F.3d 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2014), we decided an appeal by defendant-appellants (collectively, VeriFone) from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In construing the patent claims, the district court adopted plaintiff-appellees' (collectively, CardSoft's) proposed construction for the claim term "virtual machine." Applying the district [**2]  court's construction, a jury returned a verdict for CardSoft. Because the district court erred in its construction of "virtual machine," and because CardSoft waived any argument that Appellants infringe under the correct construction, we reversed the district court's decision.

Following our first decision in this case, the Supreme Court held that we must review a district court's ultimate interpretation of a claim term, as well as its interpretations of "evidence intrinsic to the patent," de novo and its subsidiary factual findings about extrinsic evidence for clear error. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841-42, 190 L. Ed. 2d 719 (2015). The Court also vacated and remanded our Cardsoft decision for further consideration in light of this new standard of review. CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2891, 192 L. Ed. 2d 919 (2015). Because this case does not involve the factual findings to which we owe deference under Teva, we again reverse the district court's construction of the term "virtual machine."

CardSoft filed suit in March 2008 against VeriFone, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,934,945 (the '945 patent) and 7,302,683 (the '683 patent). The district court held a Markman hearing in July 2011 and conducted a jury trial in June 2012. The jury determined that certain VeriFone devices infringed claim 11 of the '945 patent and claim 1 of the '683 patent and that these claims were not invalid. [**3]  VeriFone moved for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court denied both motions. VeriFone appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

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.

807 F.3d 1346 *; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20847 **; 117 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1354 ***

CARDSOFT (assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. VERIFONE, INC., HYPERCOM CORP., VERIFONE SYSTEMS INC., Defendants-Appellants INGENICO S.A., INGENICO CORP., INGENICO INC., WAY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:08-CV-00098-RSP, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2891, 192 L. Ed. 2d 919, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4327 (U.S., June 29, 2015)Cardsoft, Inc. v. Verifone Holdings, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108921 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 23, 2011)

Disposition: REVERSED.

CORE TERMS

machine, hardware, operating system, district court, patent, message, specification, processor, terminal, instructions, extrinsic evidence, infringement, intrinsic, software, de novo, factual findings, communications, conventional, interpreter, includes, portable, argues

Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, Claim Interpretation, Aids & Extrinsic Evidence, Claims & Specifications, Specifications, Claims, Claim Language, Claim Differentiation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review