Finjan LLC v. ESET, LLC

 
APPEAL NO.
21-2093
OP. BELOW
DCT
SUBJECT
Patent
AUTHOR
Reyna

Question(s) Presented

  1. “Whether a District Court’s construction of a claim term in an asserted patent, determined to be consistent with a totality of the evidence based on analysis of conflicting definitions provided in multiple incorporated-by-reference patents, should be reviewed for clear error as required by Teva.”
  2. “Where an inventor, acting as his own lexicographer, defined a claim term to have multiple conflicting meanings, may this Court, notwithstanding Phillips, Modine, and X2Y Attenuators, construe that term differently from the inventor’s own definitions?”

Posts About this Case

Date
Selected Proceedings and Orders