Meta Declare Development: Discovering That means within the That means

by Dennis Crouch

One-E-Manner, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 22-2020 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2023) (nonprecedential) (Opinion by Chief Choose Moore, joined by Judges Lourie and Stoll).

The district courtroom sided with Apple on abstract judgment, discovering no infringement. On enchantment, the Federal Circuit has affirmed, holding that Apple’s accused Bluetooth merchandise don’t infringe One-E-Manner’s patents.  Though the events had agreed to the development of the “distinctive consumer code” time period, they disagreed over the construction-of-the-construction.  On enchantment, the courtroom handled this meta-construction successfully as a type of declare building — searching for the strange that means somewhat than a contract-like interpretation that will have regarded extra towards discerning the intent of the events.

One-E-Manner sued Apple for infringing the claims of two patents associated to a wi-fi digital audio system that permits personal listening with out interference. The system makes use of a transmitter related to an audio supply and a receiver related to headphones. The transmitter comprises a code generator that generates a “distinctive consumer code” related to a selected consumer to permit pairing between the transmitter and receiver.

Throughout the infringement litigation, the events agreed to construe “distinctive consumer code” as a “mounted code (bit sequence) particularly related to one consumer of a tool(s).” Though Apple’s Bluetooth merchandise do transmit a novel code to determine the connection, the code shouldn’t be distinctive to the consumer, however somewhat it’s distinctive to the Bluetooth system.  The district courtroom agreed with Apple’s evaluation and granted abstract judgment of non-infringement.

On enchantment, One-E-Manner argued that the “distinctive consumer code” limitation continues to be met by Apple’s accused Bluetooth merchandise. Particularly, One-E-Manner contended that though the Bluetooth deal with codes are related to gadgets, the codes are nonetheless related to particular person customers by way of operation of the system. In different phrases, One-E-Manner argued that Bluetooth pairing to a selected system is equal to pairing with a selected consumer.  This argument makes the idea that every system is restricted to only “one consumer.” Though that assumption shouldn’t be strictly true, I count on that it holds true in 99% of instances.  For some time, I shared Bluetooth headphones with one in all my daughters–it didn’t work effectively in any respect.

The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, discovering that it was inconsistent the declare building which clearly states the code is related to “one consumer.” somewhat than the system itself.  Even when the Bluetooth deal with code is related to a consumer by way of use of the system, the code stays essentially related to the system. The Federal Circuit discovered no proof that the code itself turns into instantly linked to the consumer, somewhat than the system, by way of pairing and use.

The arguments on this case are considerably meta. The events are usually not arguing about declare building per se, however somewhat building of the development.  Within the enchantment, the Federal Circuit thought-about the “plain and strange that means of the agreed-upon building” and concluded that it required required a extra direct hyperlink to a consumer.   As it could with strange declare building, the courtroom regarded to the specification for help.  Particularly, the courtroom famous that the patent specs “distinguish between customers and gadgets when describing the aim of the invention” and acknowledged the issue of battle that I had with sharing Bluetooth equipment. “The patents’ constant reference to ‘consumer’ and ‘system’ as distinct entities and affiliation of the distinctive consumer code with ‘consumer’ helps the district courtroom’s conclusion that ‘one consumer of a tool’ doesn’t imply the system itself.” Slip Op.

Non-infringement affirmed.

= = =

The patents at challenge are:

– U.S. Patent No. 10,129,627
– U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047

The ‘627 and ‘047 patents share the identical specification. The courtroom handled Declare 1 of the ‘627 patent as consultant.