“I. Network-1’s Appeal A. Independent Basis for Verdict: Does the evidence compel a finding of non-infringement irrespective of the challenged constructions? B. Claim Construction: 1. Did the district court properly construe ‘low level current’ to mean ‘a non-data-signal current that is sufficient to begin the start up of the access device but that is not sufficient to sustain the start up’? 2. Did the district court properly construe ‘main power source’ to mean ‘a DC power source’? II. HP’s Cross-Appeal A. IPR Estoppel: Did the district court err in concluding that HP is estopped from presenting its obviousness challenge to all the asserted claims? B. Claim Broadening: Are the asserted claims invalid as a result of Network-1’s improper claim broadening during reexamination?”
Claim Construction
“[W]e conclude that the district court correctly construed “low level current” but erred in its construction of “main power source,” and as a result of that error, Network-1 is entitled to a new trial on infringement. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment of non-infringement and remand for a new trial to determine whether HP infringes the asserted claims based on the correct construction of “main power source.”
IPR Estoppel
“HP argues that the district court erroneously granted JMOL with respect to the ’930 patent’s validity based on its determination that HP was estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) from presenting obviousness challenges as a consequence of its joinder to the Avaya IPR. We agree that HP is not estopped. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Claim Broadening
“HP also argues that claim 6 and the other asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 305 because Network-1 improperly broadened claim 6 through the addition of claim 15 and 16 in the ’401 reexamination. We disagree and affirm the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims were not improperly broadened.”
